On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:06:48 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 2/11/11 8:31 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
On 04/02/2011 16:14, Eric Poggel wrote:
On 2/3/2011 10:20 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
At this point there is no turning back from ranges, unless we come
On 02/14/2011 04:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:06:48 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 2/11/11 8:31 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
On 04/02/2011 16:14, Eric Poggel wrote:
On 2/3/2011 10:20 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
At this point
Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:48:53 +0100, spir wrote:
On 02/14/2011 04:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 19:06:48 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 2/11/11 8:31 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
On 04/02/2011 16:14, Eric Poggel wrote:
On 2/3/2011 10:20
Jonathan M Davis:
Except that then you get the issue of eager vs lazy concatenation. chain is
lazy
whereas ~ is eager, so that wouldn't fly.
In dlibs1 I have a lazy chain(). If you perform a chain(chain(x, y), z) or
chain(x, chain(y, z)) it's rewritten as chain(x,y,z). Plus there's a
On Saturday 12 February 2011 03:08:15 bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
Except that then you get the issue of eager vs lazy concatenation. chain
is lazy whereas ~ is eager, so that wouldn't fly.
In dlibs1 I have a lazy chain(). If you perform a chain(chain(x, y), z) or
chain(x, chain(y,
Jonathan M Davis:
It's a problem of semantics. ~ is intended for eager concatenation. That's
how
it's designed and what it's expected to mean.
This is written nowhere. I am referring to my second proposal. It makes code
more generic, because it allows you to use ~ for both arrays and lazy
On 02/12/2011 03:17 PM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
It's a problem of semantics. ~ is intended for eager concatenation. That's how
it's designed and what it's expected to mean.
This is written nowhere. I am referring to my second proposal. It makes code
more generic, because it
On Saturday 12 February 2011 06:26:40 spir wrote:
On 02/12/2011 03:17 PM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
It's a problem of semantics. ~ is intended for eager concatenation.
That's how it's designed and what it's expected to mean.
This is written nowhere. I am referring to my
spir:
what about using '*' for chaining syntax sugar. I mean, func composition is
often written using '.' which means product (and is sometimes even spelled
product for functions too), right? And product is written '*' in D... What
do
you think?
I think that using * for lazy chaining
Walter already decided against using + for concatenation because of the
perceived ambiguity - e.g. does 5 + 2 do 52 or 7? He's not going
to go
for * for anything similar. Honestly, we don't need more syntactic sugar
at this
point.
- Jonathan M Davis
Isn't it quite obvious? Both + * serves
On 04/02/2011 21:07, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:44:46 -0500, Jeff Nowakowski j...@dilacero.org
wrote:
On 02/03/2011 10:07 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
The way to get a high performance string parser in D is to take
advantage of one of D's unique features - slices. Java,
On 06/02/2011 21:30, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-06 20:59, Walter Bright wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-04 20:33, Walter Bright wrote:
so wrote:
It doesn't matter what signature you use for the function, compiler is
aware and will output an error when you do the opposite of the
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:19:51 -0500, Bruno Medeiros
brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail wrote:
On 04/02/2011 21:07, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:44:46 -0500, Jeff Nowakowski j...@dilacero.org
wrote:
On 02/03/2011 10:07 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
The way to get a high
On 11/02/2011 13:48, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:19:51 -0500, Bruno Medeiros
brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail wrote:
On 04/02/2011 21:07, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:44:46 -0500, Jeff Nowakowski j...@dilacero.org
wrote:
On 02/03/2011 10:07 PM,
On 04/02/2011 16:14, Eric Poggel wrote:
On 2/3/2011 10:20 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
At this point there is no turning back from ranges, unless we come about
with an even better idea (I discussed one with Walter but we're not
pursuing it yet).
Care to elaborate on the new idea? Or at
On 2011-02-11 09:29:03 -0500, Bruno Medeiros
brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail said:
On 11/02/2011 13:48, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think D can do it without copying out of the buffer. You just have to
avoid using immutable strings.
-Steve
The data that you want to keep afterwards you
On 2/11/11 8:31 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
On 04/02/2011 16:14, Eric Poggel wrote:
On 2/3/2011 10:20 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
At this point there is no turning back from ranges, unless we come about
with an even better idea (I discussed one with Walter but we're not
pursuing it yet).
Andrei:
Now we have a unified way of referring to elements in ranges. Walter's
excellent follow-up is that the compiler could use lowering such that
you don't even need to use first and last. You'd just use r[0] and r[$ -
1] and the compiler would take care of handling these special cases.
On Friday, February 11, 2011 17:01:31 bearophile wrote:
Andrei:
Now we have a unified way of referring to elements in ranges. Walter's
excellent follow-up is that the compiler could use lowering such that
you don't even need to use first and last. You'd just use r[0] and r[$ -
1] and the
On 06/02/2011 16:41, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/5/11 17:54 EST, BLS wrote:
On 04/02/2011 04:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Cool. Is Michael Rynn willing to make a submission?
He announced a while ago in d.announce. std.xml2 candidate.. A few weeks
earlier (if am not completely wrong) he
On 2/7/11 12:02 PM, BLS wrote:
On 06/02/2011 16:41, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/5/11 17:54 EST, BLS wrote:
On 04/02/2011 04:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Cool. Is Michael Rynn willing to make a submission?
He announced a while ago in d.announce. std.xml2 candidate.. A few weeks
earlier
On 2011-02-04 20:33, Walter Bright wrote:
so wrote:
It doesn't matter what signature you use for the function, compiler is
aware and will output an error when you do the opposite of the
signature. If this is the case, why do we need that signature?
Examine the API of a function in a library.
On 2011-02-04 21:44, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On 02/03/2011 10:07 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
The way to get a high performance string parser in D is to take
advantage of one of D's unique features - slices. Java, C++, C#, etc.,
all rely on copying strings. With D you can just use slices into the
On 2/5/11 17:54 EST, BLS wrote:
On 04/02/2011 04:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Cool. Is Michael Rynn willing to make a submission?
He announced a while ago in d.announce. std.xml2 candidate.. A few weeks
earlier (if am not completely wrong) he offers his implementation for
phobos.
We need
On 02/06/2011 05:43 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-04 21:44, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
Java's substring() does not copy the text, at least in the official JDK
implementation. Unfortunately, it doesn't specify this behavior as part
of the String API.
But, I assume, it will allocate a new
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-04 08:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Slices: just one more reason why D's arrays kick the pants of other
languages'
arrays...
- Jonathan M Davis
Ruby has array slices as well. A slice of an array refers to the
original data just like in D. But on the other
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-04 20:33, Walter Bright wrote:
so wrote:
It doesn't matter what signature you use for the function, compiler is
aware and will output an error when you do the opposite of the
signature. If this is the case, why do we need that signature?
Examine the API of a
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On 02/06/2011 05:43 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-04 21:44, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
Java's substring() does not copy the text, at least in the official JDK
implementation. Unfortunately, it doesn't specify this behavior as part
of the String API.
But, I assume,
Walter:
Can you use an array slice in ruby as an argument to any function that takes
a
string?
The NumPy library for Python uses light slices, that are seen as normal NumPy
arrays, like in D. NumPy arrays may contain numbers, chars, records, etc.
Bye,
bearophile
On 2011-02-06 20:51, Walter Bright wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-04 08:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Slices: just one more reason why D's arrays kick the pants of other
languages'
arrays...
- Jonathan M Davis
Ruby has array slices as well. A slice of an array refers to the
original
On 2011-02-06 20:59, Walter Bright wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-04 20:33, Walter Bright wrote:
so wrote:
It doesn't matter what signature you use for the function, compiler is
aware and will output an error when you do the opposite of the
signature. If this is the case, why do we
On 02/06/2011 10:28 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-06 20:51, Walter Bright wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-04 08:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Slices: just one more reason why D's arrays kick the pants of other
languages'
arrays...
- Jonathan M Davis
Ruby has array slices as
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 2/4/11, spir denis.s...@gmail.com wrote:
About that, I would love a tutorial about eponymous templates starting
with their /purpose/ (why does this feature even exist? what does it
/mean/? what does it compare/oppose to? why is one supposed to need/enjoy
it? how is
The case is different --I mean the comparison does not hold IIUC.
Virtual methods are /intended/ to be overriden, this is precisely part
of their semantics. While the whole point of const-the-D-way is to
ensure actual constness as marked in a given function's signature,
whatever this
On 2011-02-04 08:34, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Slices: just one more reason why D's arrays kick the pants of other languages'
arrays...
- Jonathan M Davis
Ruby has array slices as well. A slice of an array refers to the
original data just like in D. But on the other hand a new instance is
On 04/02/2011 04:20, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Cool. Is Michael Rynn willing to make a submission?
He announced a while ago in d.announce. std.xml2 candidate.. A few weeks
earlier (if am not completely wrong) he offers his implementation for
phobos.
Regarding ranges.
- Ranges of ranges
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/3/11 7:56 PM, BLS wrote:
I got more and more the feeling that the D2 monster was made just for
ranges. The smart and elegant D1 design is definitely dead an gone. I
think I am not the only one who would prefer a D1 plus instead of D2.
bjoern
All in all it's
Max Samukha wrote:
.NET and Qt do have slices of some kind:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1hsbd92d.aspx
http://doc.qt.nokia.com/latest/qstringref.html#details
I am not sure whether their XML libraries use those.
.net's slices are inadequate, because its strings are not
On 2/4/11 3:15 AM, Don wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/3/11 7:56 PM, BLS wrote:
I got more and more the feeling that the D2 monster was made just for
ranges. The smart and elegant D1 design is definitely dead an gone. I
think I am not the only one who would prefer a D1 plus instead of
On 02/04/2011 11:24 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
Max Samukha wrote:
.NET and Qt do have slices of some kind:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1hsbd92d.aspx
http://doc.qt.nokia.com/latest/qstringref.html#details
I am not sure whether their XML libraries use those.
.net's slices are
On 02/04/2011 08:34 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Slices: just one more reason why D's arrays kick the pants of other languages'
arrays...
What are the other ones?
Denis
--
_
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
On 02/04/2011 10:15 AM, Don wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/3/11 7:56 PM, BLS wrote:
I got more and more the feeling that the D2 monster was made just for
ranges. The smart and elegant D1 design is definitely dead an gone. I
think I am not the only one who would prefer a D1 plus
On 02/04/2011 10:32 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
relaxing the rules for eponymous templates
About that, I would love a tutorial about eponymous templates starting with
their /purpose/ (why does this feature even exist? what does it /mean/? what
does it compare/oppose to? why is one
Max Samukha Wrote:
.NET and Qt do have slices of some kind:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1hsbd92d.aspx
http://doc.qt.nokia.com/latest/qstringref.html#details
I am not sure whether their XML libraries use those.
C# uses old good String.
On 2/3/2011 10:20 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
At this point there is no turning back from ranges, unless we come about
with an even better idea (I discussed one with Walter but we're not
pursuing it yet).
Care to elaborate on the new idea? Or at least a quick summary so we're
not all left
On 2/4/11, spir denis.s...@gmail.com wrote:
About that, I would love a tutorial about eponymous templates starting with
their /purpose/ (why does this feature even exist? what does it /mean/? what
does it compare/oppose to? why is one supposed to need/enjoy it? how is it
supposed to help
spir wrote:
On 02/04/2011 08:34 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Slices: just one more reason why D's arrays kick the pants of other
languages'
arrays...
What are the other ones?
Scope guard is another.
I would argue that transitive const is, too, but the benefits of that are harder
to see.
Scope guard is another.
Scope guard is awesome with C libs that have complicated
acquire/release rules. Saves my butt. :D
BLS wrote:
I got more and more the feeling that the D2 monster was made just for
ranges.
The only range support that is actually in the language is in foreach. That can
be ignored if you prefer.
Unix's core structure is that everything is a file. Operations are strung
together as
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:33:09 +0200, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
spir wrote:
On 02/04/2011 08:34 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Slices: just one more reason why D's arrays kick the pants of other
languages'
arrays...
What are the other ones?
Scope guard is another.
I
This hole is not that explicit in C++ because it is not transitive.
Ignore this line...
Btw, if i made myself clear to at least one person, please let me know
since this is (at least to me) very important.
so wrote:
It doesn't matter what signature you use for the function, compiler is
aware and will output an error when you do the opposite of the
signature. If this is the case, why do we need that signature?
Examine the API of a function in a library. It says it doesn't modify anything
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Having a perspective on how all features tie together is crucial to
understanding the purpose of individual features themselves. In my
opinion!
Of course, but both are necessary.
so Wrote:
It doesn't matter what signature you use for the function, compiler is
aware and will output an error when you do the opposite of the signature.
If this is the case, why do we need that signature?
Its presence just makes things complicated and with actually no reason.
Are you
On 2/4/11, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Having a perspective on how all features tie together is crucial to
understanding the purpose of individual features themselves. In my
opinion!
Of course, but both are necessary.
Well, I'm saying that you've
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 13:49:42 -0500, so s...@so.do wrote:
Now, what i mean with this:
---
struct A {
B whatever;
bool opEquals(A a) {
return whatever == a.whatever; // just comparision, this function is
const
}
bool anything(A a) {
whatever
Actually, there are two reasons.
First, it's due to the compilation model of D. Without the signature to
convey the information, the compiler cannot make any guarantees. It is
legal to declare simply a function signature without the relevant
source, in order to link against the function.
so wrote:
You changed the function and the new function is not working, just what
you expect.
It is not silently is it? Unlike you use A a instead of const A a.
this const alone would give you all the guaranties you need.
What would you do in the case of pointers to functions, virtual
Examine the API of a function in a library. It says it doesn't modify
anything reachable through its arguments, but is that true? How would
you know? And how would you know if the API doc doesn't say?
You are right, but try to look at this from another angle (probably i am
not making any
On 02/03/2011 10:07 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
The way to get a high performance string parser in D is to take
advantage of one of D's unique features - slices. Java, C++, C#, etc.,
all rely on copying strings. With D you can just use slices into the
original XML source text. If you're copying
so wrote:
Examine the API of a function in a library. It says it doesn't modify
anything reachable through its arguments, but is that true? How would
you know? And how would you know if the API doc doesn't say?
You are right, but try to look at this from another angle (probably i am
not
What would you do in the case of pointers to functions, virtual
functions, functions implemented with inline assembly, and functions for
which the source is not available?
Just like we don't know if the derived class overrides a given function,
we could do something similar i suppose?
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:26:07 -0500, so s...@so.do wrote:
Actually, there are two reasons.
First, it's due to the compilation model of D. Without the signature
to convey the information, the compiler cannot make any guarantees. It
is legal to declare simply a function signature without
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:44:51 +0200, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
so wrote:
Examine the API of a function in a library. It says it doesn't modify
anything reachable through its arguments, but is that true? How would
you know? And how would you know if the API doc doesn't
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:44:46 -0500, Jeff Nowakowski j...@dilacero.org
wrote:
On 02/03/2011 10:07 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
The way to get a high performance string parser in D is to take
advantage of one of D's unique features - slices. Java, C++, C#, etc.,
all rely on copying strings. With
On 2/4/11, spir denis.s...@gmail.com wrote:
but there are tons of parts of D2 that would
benefit of a good introduction, really starting from the base (and not
implicitely assuming 10 years of C++ programming --esp. about vocabulary:
people here don't seem to realise how much words they use
On 02/04/2011 09:52 PM, so wrote:
What would you do in the case of pointers to functions, virtual functions,
functions implemented with inline assembly, and functions for which the
source is not available?
Just like we don't know if the derived class overrides a given function, we
could do
On 02/04/2011 10:41 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 2/4/11, spirdenis.s...@gmail.com wrote:
but there are tons of parts of D2 that would
benefit of a good introduction, really starting from the base (and not
implicitely assuming 10 years of C++ programming --esp. about vocabulary:
people here
On 2011-02-03 00:33, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
For a while we've espoused the strategy of keeping std.xml in Phobos
until something better comes along.
But recently we've started to rethink that.
Pretty much everyone who tries std.xml ends up disappointed. Anyone who
wants to bash D has
On Thursday 03 February 2011 02:01:35 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-03 00:33, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
For a while we've espoused the strategy of keeping std.xml in Phobos
until something better comes along.
But recently we've started to rethink that.
Pretty much everyone who
On 2011-02-03 00:38, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 03.02.2011 00:33, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
For a while we've espoused the strategy of keeping std.xml in Phobos until
something better comes along.
But recently we've started to rethink that.
Pretty much everyone who tries std.xml ends up
On 2011-02-03 01:47, Bernard Helyer wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:28:27 -0800, Brad Roberts wrote:
I haven't used it nor am likely to,
but I also have trouble ruling out the potential that there's users for
which it works and they just aren't talking about it here.
I do not believe that it's
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:33:42 +0900, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
For a while we've espoused the strategy of keeping std.xml in Phobos
until something better comes along.
But recently we've started to rethink that.
Pretty much everyone who tries std.xml ends up
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:30:17 Tomek Sowiński wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu napisał:
I'm not against replacement, but I'd be concerned about removal before
a replacement is available.
My problem is that the mere presence is reducing the likelihood of a
replacement coming about,
On 2/3/11 1:30 PM, Tomek Sowiński wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu napisał:
I'm not against replacement, but I'd be concerned about removal before a
replacement is available.
My problem is that the mere presence is reducing the likelihood of a
replacement coming about, in addition to the other
Andrei Alexandrescu napisał:
Is anyone tasked with a replacement yet? I had to write an XML parser at
some point. It's plenty of work bringing up to industrial quality, so I'd
have to know that before I dive in.
Nobody that I know of. If you want to discuss design here while working
Jonathan M Davis napisał:
I think that at least a couple of people have said that they have the
beginnings
of a replacement, but I don't believe that anyone has stepped up to say that
they'll actually complete and propose a module for inclusion in Phobos.
Wimps ;-)
So, std.xml is still
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:48:45 -0500, Tomek Sowiński j...@ask.me wrote:
Jonathan M Davis napisał:
I think that at least a couple of people have said that they have the
beginnings
of a replacement, but I don't believe that anyone has stepped up to say
that
they'll actually complete and
Am 03.02.2011 21:48, schrieb Tomek Sowiński:
Jonathan M Davis napisał:
I think that at least a couple of people have said that they have the
beginnings
of a replacement, but I don't believe that anyone has stepped up to say that
they'll actually complete and propose a module for
On Thursday 03 February 2011 12:48:45 Tomek Sowiński wrote:
Jonathan M Davis napisał:
I think that at least a couple of people have said that they have the
beginnings of a replacement, but I don't believe that anyone has stepped
up to say that they'll actually complete and propose a module
On 02/03/2011 10:00 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I believe it is a pull parser, though I'm not sure what that means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML#Pull_parsing
---
Denis
--
_
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
On 02/03/2011 10:03 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
You probably shouldn't look at the source.
I dunno about the interface (documentation) - it's certainly not illegal to take
inspiration from it, but maybe then people will again claim that source was
stolen.. but when you claim that you haven't looked
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 03.02.2011 21:48, schrieb Tomek Sowiński:
Jonathan M Davis napisał:
I think that at least a couple of people have said that they have the
beginnings
of a replacement, but I don't believe that anyone has
Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 03.02.2011 21:48, schrieb Tomek Sowiński:
Jonathan M Davis napisał:
I think that at least a couple of people have said that they have the
beginnings
of a
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson
metalcae...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 03.02.2011 21:48, schrieb Tomek
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson
metalcae...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 03.02.2011 21:48, schrieb Tomek Sowiński:
Speaking of Tango, may I look at
Daniel Gibson napisał:
They can claim whatever they want.. if Tomek says he only looked at the
documentation (for an idea how a good interface for a XML lib may look like)
they can hardly prove anything.
One remark: I haven't even looked at the doc. That's why I was asking may I
look.
--
Am 03.02.2011 22:45, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 03.02.2011 21:48,
spir spir napisał:
You probably shouldn't look at the source.
I dunno about the interface (documentation) - it's certainly not illegal to
take
inspiration from it, but maybe then people will again claim that source was
stolen.. but when you claim that you haven't looked at the source
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:10:18 -0500, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com
wrote:
I thought the Author *had* looked at the Tango source but claimed not to
have used it?
See here:
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.announcearticle_id=18090
His English
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 13:51:41 Gary Whatmore wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson
On 2/3/11 3:51 PM, Gary Whatmore wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibsonmetalcae...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel Gibson
metalcae...@gmail.com wrote:
Am
Am 03.02.2011 23:29, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:10:18 -0500, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com
wrote:
I thought the Author *had* looked at the Tango source but claimed not to
have used it?
See here:
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 14:17:49 Tomek Sowiński wrote:
spir spir napisał:
You probably shouldn't look at the source.
I dunno about the interface (documentation) - it's certainly not
illegal to take inspiration from it, but maybe then people will again
claim that source was
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 14:36:06 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/3/11 3:51 PM, Gary Whatmore wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibsonmetalcae...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011
On 02/03/2011 11:10 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Claiming that looking at the documentation isn't sufficient to understand how
the API works (from a users point of view, not internally) is pretty stupid:
1. it insults the modules author(s) (You're too stupid to write meaningful
documentation)
2.
On 2/3/11 11:46 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[…] If they were more open and
willing to share code, then building off of what they have and turning it into a
range-based solution would likely make a lot of sense, but since that's not the
case, we need to figure it out on our own.
Just like
Gary Whatmore n...@spam.sp wrote in message
news:iif81d$1ch8$1...@digitalmars.com...
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:41:08 -0500, Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 03.02.2011 22:26, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:03:55 -0500, Daniel
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:53:24 -0500, David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at
wrote:
On 2/3/11 11:46 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[…] If they were more open and
willing to share code, then building off of what they have and turning
it into a
range-based solution would likely make a lot of sense,
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.vqcns2egeav7ka@steve-laptop...
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:53:24 -0500, David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at
wrote:
On 2/3/11 11:46 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[.] If they were more open and
willing to share code, then building
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
