On Saturday, 4 July 2015 at 22:43:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/4/2015 2:24 PM, Joakim wrote:
I agree that mistyping and checking a large array of
version constants can cause problems
It's one reason why this style is recommended:
version (linux)
{
...
}
else
On 06/28/15 16:21, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sunday, 28 June 2015 at 13:43:39 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 06/28/15 05:06, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
So you're trying to avoid writing this?
version(linux) version(D_LP32)
version = valistIsCharPointer;
else version(Windows)
On Saturday, 4 July 2015 at 15:04:32 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
What I was referring to was the use of subtly different
identifiers
- the original used 'Linux', but your version has 'linux'. Such
changes are hard to see even in a four-liner; they are almost
impossible to catch in a larger
On 7/4/2015 2:24 PM, Joakim wrote:
I agree that mistyping and checking a large array of
version constants can cause problems
It's one reason why this style is recommended:
version (linux)
{
...
}
else version (Windows)
{
...
}
else
static
On Thursday, 2 July 2015 at 14:42:10 UTC, ketmar wrote:
that's why my hashtables supports alot of types, including
ints, strings, structs and inlined? hm...
Hashing isn't type-dependent. You can't really do it well in C
with things like extensible physics and sound synthesis.
People write
On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 06:11:49 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
Nah, it's more like let's solve this in a language where this can be
done in a convenient manner and will be used by many people.
wait, are you talking about C here? 'cause it's about C.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 02:53:53 -0400, ketmar ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:30:52 -0400, bitwise wrote:
IMO,
the D community's time would be better spent improving D/C++ interop
than trying to make D a systems language.
but that interop is excellent now! for, see, if
On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 at 14:30:26 UTC, ketmar wrote:
so let 'em be in their wonderful C++ world. no need to drag
that abomination to other worlds.
You can't really write libraries in C if you need inlining to get
good performance. Such libraries are usually written in C++.
To get those
On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 at 14:30:26 UTC, ketmar wrote:
using it as library outside of C++ world is a huge mistake.
I can't agree with this. PyQt is the most usable UI toolkit for
Python in my experience.
- David
On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 06:12:26 +, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 at 14:30:26 UTC, ketmar wrote:
using it as library outside of C++ world is a huge mistake.
I can't agree with this. PyQt is the most usable UI toolkit for Python
in my experience.
except that python is a
On 6/30/2015 8:55 AM, bitwise wrote:
Waiiit a minute...reading this again, it seems you are talking about writing
code for a single system.
In that case, yea, I suppose you can get by without versions. The market in
multi-platform mobile apps is not something that should be ignored though.
D
On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 02:08:58 -0400, bitwise wrote:
It is pretty good, but it's the little things, like these:
the whole thing i'm talking about is no C++ interop is necessary,
eVaR! ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:15:38 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 at 14:30:26 UTC, ketmar wrote:
so let 'em be in their wonderful C++ world. no need to drag that
abomination to other worlds.
You can't really write libraries in C if you need inlining to get good
On Thursday, 2 July 2015 at 10:28:16 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 02:08:58 -0400, bitwise wrote:
It is pretty good, but it's the little things, like these:
the whole thing i'm talking about is no C++ interop is
necessary, eVaR! ;-)
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and
On Thursday, 2 July 2015 at 10:29:39 UTC, ketmar wrote:
ahem. i don't even know how i managed to do that all the time
with static inline in .h files... i'm a black magicman!
Doesn't matter what you are, but what language core libraries are
written in.
On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 11:39:11 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Thursday, 2 July 2015 at 10:29:39 UTC, ketmar wrote:
ahem. i don't even know how i managed to do that all the time with
static inline in .h files... i'm a black magicman!
Doesn't matter what you are, but what language core
On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 11:09:23 +, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and you're definitely free to
avoid C++ libraries if that what you want, but there are plenty of D
users who want good C++ interop (and for some projects, pretty much
require it - especially the
On Thursday, 2 July 2015 at 11:55:48 UTC, ketmar wrote:
ahem. i can. with C. what am i doing wrong?
Well, you can't because you don't have templates. The most recent
C version have a hacked up version of generics, but who knows
if/when Microsoft will implement it.
People write core
On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 12:35:18 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Thursday, 2 July 2015 at 11:55:48 UTC, ketmar wrote:
ahem. i can. with C. what am i doing wrong?
Well, you can't because you don't have templates.
that's why my hashtables supports alot of types, including ints, strings,
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 10:56:43 UTC, ketmar wrote:
if only there is a way to define such enums from command line,
akin to - version...
+1.
predefined versions can be easily set at CT as enum an used with
static if() but with this feature is would make more sense.
On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 at 13:43:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 at 11:18:17 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:16:13 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
Quite a few niche-libraries are C++ only.
throw 'em away, they full of bugs and broken code anyway.
On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 at 11:18:17 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:16:13 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
Quite a few niche-libraries are C++ only.
throw 'em away, they full of bugs and broken code anyway.
Qt? AFAIK, it's C++-only, and it's widely considered to be one of
On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 at 06:53:53 UTC, ketmar wrote:
but that interop is excellent now! for, see, if some library
has no C API, only C++ API, authors of that library are heavily
brain-damaged, and the troubles library brings will be much
greater than any benefits one can get.
Quite a few
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:16:13 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
Quite a few niche-libraries are C++ only.
throw 'em away, they full of bugs and broken code anyway.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 13:43:26 +, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 at 11:18:17 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:16:13 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
Quite a few niche-libraries are C++ only.
throw 'em away, they full of bugs and broken code anyway.
Qt?
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:30:52 -0400, bitwise wrote:
IMO,
the D community's time would be better spent improving D/C++ interop
than trying to make D a systems language.
but that interop is excellent now! for, see, if some library has no C API,
only C++ API, authors of that library are heavily
On Sunday, 28 June 2015 at 13:43:39 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 06/28/15 05:06, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
So you're trying to avoid writing this?
version(linux) version(D_LP32)
version = valistIsCharPointer;
else version(Windows)
version = valistIsCharPointer;
While your
On 6/29/2015 8:30 AM, bitwise wrote:
FWIW, I've thought through most of my use cases, and it seems I can do without
this feature(both mine and Daniels suggestions). This is mainly because I've
decided to write anything close to the system in C++. If/When the day comes that
system APIs are
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:30:50 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 6/29/2015 8:30 AM, bitwise wrote:
FWIW, I've thought through most of my use cases, and it seems I can do
without
this feature(both mine and Daniels suggestions). This is mainly because
I've
decided to
On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 02:30:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/29/2015 8:30 AM, bitwise wrote:
[...]
I don't believe a macro processor is necessary to write systems
code, nor do I believe version expressions are, either.
so is that a 'no, D will never get a real macro preprocessor'?
On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 15:55:49 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 02:30:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I don't believe a macro processor is necessary to write
systems code, nor do I believe version expressions are, either.
Waiiit a minute...reading this again, it seems you
On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 02:30:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I don't believe a macro processor is necessary to write systems
code, nor do I believe version expressions are, either.
Waiiit a minute...reading this again, it seems you are talking
about writing code for a single system.
In
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 00:10:28 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 6/25/2015 11:06 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
This pattern does appear frequently in your compiler code, are you for
or
against seeing it in D?
Against. A lot of the compiler code is very, very old, and is
On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 16:19:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 15:55:49 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 at 02:30:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I don't believe a macro processor is necessary to write
systems code, nor do I believe version expressions
On Friday, 26 June 2015 at 06:06:09 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Walter, how about a compromise?
If we allow setting versions to boolean expression then it
becomes much easier to use it the way you suggest, while still
requiring a (hopefully) sensible name and discouraging making a
mess.
eg
On 6/25/2015 11:06 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
This pattern does appear frequently in your compiler code, are you for or
against seeing it in D?
Against. A lot of the compiler code is very, very old, and is not representative
of modern thinking. I've also been pretty successful at removing that
Walter Bright wrote in message news:mloslo$1o7v$1...@digitalmars.com...
I have yet to see a single case of needing boolean versions that could
not be refactored into something much more readable and maintainable that
did not use such.
Over time, I've gotten rid of most of that stuff from
On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 11:53:31 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:44:08 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 at 17:28:51 UTC, ketmar wrote:
and `version` isn't a constant. it's a version id. it even
lives in it's own name space.
For no gain whatsoever.
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:44:08 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 at 17:28:51 UTC, ketmar wrote:
and `version` isn't a constant. it's a version id. it even lives in
it's own name space.
For no gain whatsoever.
and it can be removed for good if `static if` will be
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:57:19 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
Although I think it might be more readable to have and, or
etc as operators. This is actually allowed in C++:
a b = a and bâ¦
i prefer that to and ||, tbh, not because i have pascal/oberon
background, but 'cause it's harder
On Thursday, 18 June 2015 at 11:51:04 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:57:19 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
Although I think it might be more readable to have and, or
etc as operators. This is actually allowed in C++:
a b = a and b…
i prefer that to and ||, tbh, not
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:12:31 +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/18/2015 01:53 PM, ketmar wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:44:08 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 at 17:28:51 UTC, ketmar wrote:
and `version` isn't a constant. it's a version id. it even lives in
it's
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:19:03 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
p.s. and i hate that true converts to 1. in many forth systems
true is -1, and it's way better. `acast(int)true` actually works
for the most widely used case (when a.sizeof = int.sizeof), for
examplt.
I'm all for very strict
On 06/18/2015 01:53 PM, ketmar wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:44:08 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 at 17:28:51 UTC, ketmar wrote:
and `version` isn't a constant. it's a version id. it even lives in
it's own name space.
For no gain whatsoever.
and it can be
On 17/06/15 10:03, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
Given the direction D2 has taken since D1, I'd say that I'm starting to
agree with you that powerful symbolic programming would be the better
deal overall.
But it would take a major
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 at 17:24:50 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 03:10:01 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
I have yet to see a single case of needing boolean versions
that could not be refactored into something much more readable
and maintainable that did not use such.
and i have
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 at 17:28:51 UTC, ketmar wrote:
and `version` isn't a constant. it's a version id. it even
lives in it's own name space.
For no gain whatsoever.
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 03:05:06 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2015 4:03 AM, ketmar wrote:
honestly, if i'll want to have a limited language, i'll take Go.
Go doesn't have conditional compilation.
you got it!
removing a power only 'cause it can be abused is not in a spirit of
D,
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 03:10:01 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
I have yet to see a single case of needing boolean versions that could
not be refactored into something much more readable and maintainable
that did not use such.
and i have yet to see such cases for multiplication operator. it's
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 at 17:18:42 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 03:05:06 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2015 4:03 AM, ketmar wrote:
honestly, if i'll want to have a limited language, i'll take
Go.
Go doesn't have conditional compilation.
you got it!
removing a power
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 22:06:24 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 21:59:43 UTC, ketmar wrote:
nononono. i smell #define hell from C and all the problems it brings,
like careful ordering of #include.
Nah. #define does not define constants, but variable macros.
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:25:05 +, weaselcat wrote:
sometimes I find 'alias this' quite elegant, such as using alias this to
a function. Other times I find it to be a poor hack to get around the
lack of struct inheritance.
i agree that it has it's uses, but it's still a weird hack. and it
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 at 06:23:15 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-06-16 22:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Sounds like it's preventing an abuse of operator overloading
to me... :)
Sounds like it's preventing a perfectly good use case. Or do
you prefer AST macros instead :)
I prefer
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 at 05:09:54 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 20:57:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Use of expression templates in C++ to implement DSLs is
probably some of the most awful code ever conceived.
A lot of things in C++ are ill-conceived, but
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 at 06:23:15 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Sounds like it's preventing a perfectly good use case. Or do
you prefer AST macros instead :)
Given the direction D2 has taken since D1, I'd say that I'm
starting to agree with you that powerful symbolic programming
would be
On 2015-06-16 22:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Sounds like it's preventing an abuse of operator overloading to me... :)
Sounds like it's preventing a perfectly good use case. Or do you prefer
AST macros instead :)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2015-06-16 22:59, Walter Bright wrote:
#define BEGIN {
#define END }
Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=lEOOZDbMrgE#t=163
And the current approach to operator overload is s much better,
preventing all abuse:
struct Int
{
int a;
On 06/17/2015 02:28 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 June 2015 at 06:23:15 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-06-16 22:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Sounds like it's preventing an abuse of operator overloading to me... :)
Sounds like it's preventing a perfectly good use case. Or
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 09:55:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/13/2015 6:51 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Just use the static if trick.
Someone had used the static if trick in druntime. It caused
some weird dependency bugs. I removed it - it turned out to be
confusing, buggy, and
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 13:16:40 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Unfortunately not true, you're adding multiple alias this…
Excuse me for what I am trying to avoid overquoting :)
You probably refer to CLOS and not proper Lisp.
CLOS was adopted as part of the standard ANSI Common Lisp.
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 10:39:48 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 10:05:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
It does not allow multiple inheritance.
Unfortunately not true, you're adding multiple alias this…
I have often heard from Lisp programmers that the rejection of
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 09:55:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/13/2015 6:51 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Just use the static if trick.
Someone had used the static if trick in druntime. It caused
some weird dependency bugs. I removed it - it turned out to be
confusing, buggy, and
On 6/16/2015 6:28 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 09:55:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/13/2015 6:51 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Just use the static if trick.
Someone had used the static if trick in druntime. It caused some weird
dependency bugs. I removed it -
On 6/16/2015 1:36 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 19:55:21 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-06-16 12:05, Walter Bright wrote:
Actually, D does quite a bit of that. For example, it deliberately does
not allow to be overloaded separately from .
Which has its own
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 20:59:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/16/2015 1:46 PM, rsw0x wrote:
You call it abuse, I call it developer freedom.
#define BEGIN {
#define END }
Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=lEOOZDbMrgE#t=163
#define
On 6/16/2015 1:46 PM, rsw0x wrote:
You call it abuse, I call it developer freedom.
#define BEGIN {
#define END }
Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=lEOOZDbMrgE#t=163
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 21:10:50 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 21:09:40 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 20:59:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/16/2015 1:46 PM, rsw0x wrote:
You call it abuse, I call it developer freedom.
#define BEGIN {
#define END }
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 21:09:40 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 20:59:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/16/2015 1:46 PM, rsw0x wrote:
You call it abuse, I call it developer freedom.
#define BEGIN {
#define END }
Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 20:36:20 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 19:55:21 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-06-16 12:05, Walter Bright wrote:
Actually, D does quite a bit of that. For example, it
deliberately does
not allow to be overloaded separately from .
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 19:55:21 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-06-16 12:05, Walter Bright wrote:
Actually, D does quite a bit of that. For example, it
deliberately does
not allow to be overloaded separately from .
Which has its own limitations [1].
[1]
On 2015-06-16 12:05, Walter Bright wrote:
Actually, D does quite a bit of that. For example, it deliberately does
not allow to be overloaded separately from .
Which has its own limitations [1].
[1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14593
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Walter Bright wrote in message news:mloslo$1o7v$1...@digitalmars.com...
I have yet to see a single case of needing boolean versions that could
not be refactored into something much more readable and maintainable that
did not use such.
Over time, I've gotten rid of most of that stuff from
Walter Bright wrote in message news:mlorvv$1nb6$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 6/14/2015 9:53 AM, bitwise wrote:
What if I need AndroidOrWP8, and I
also need Win32OrWin64? This can quickly become a much larger pita.
If you need those, the design is wrong. It is better to think about what
the
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 20:57:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Use of expression templates in C++ to implement DSLs is
probably some of the most awful code ever conceived.
Whereas string mixins allow us to do all kinds of crazy stuff
with DSLs if you want to - but they're clearly confined in
On 6/16/2015 6:04 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Keeping this feature simple and limited just pushes the complexity into user
code.
I simply don't believe that.
It does take some work to redesign and refactor to find a better way, but the
result should not be more complicated.
On 6/16/2015 6:06 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Walter Bright wrote in message news:mlorvv$1nb6$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 6/14/2015 9:53 AM, bitwise wrote:
What if I need AndroidOrWP8, and I
also need Win32OrWin64? This can quickly become a much larger pita.
If you need those, the design is
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:59:36 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 6/16/2015 1:46 PM, rsw0x wrote:
You call it abuse, I call it developer freedom.
#define BEGIN {
#define END }
Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!
On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 at 10:05:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
It does not allow multiple inheritance.
I have often heard from Lisp programmers that the rejection of
multiple inheritance is a weakness. They believe that it's well
implemented in Lisp, and developers of other languages can not
On 6/13/2015 6:51 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Just use the static if trick.
Someone had used the static if trick in druntime. It caused some weird
dependency bugs. I removed it - it turned out to be confusing, buggy, and wholly
unnecessary.
You can use it in your own code if you like,
On 6/14/2015 9:53 AM, bitwise wrote:
What if I need AndroidOrWP8, and I
also need Win32OrWin64? This can quickly become a much larger pita.
If you need those, the design is wrong. It is better to think about what the
code is trying to do with Android or WP8, and label *that* a version.
On 6/15/2015 7:51 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]
I have yet to see a single case of needing boolean versions that could not be
refactored into something much more readable and maintainable that did not use such.
Over time, I've gotten rid of most of that stuff from the dmd source code,
On 6/14/2015 4:03 AM, ketmar wrote:
honestly, if i'll want to have a limited language, i'll take Go.
Go doesn't have conditional compilation.
removing a power only 'cause it can be abused is not in a spirit of D,
Actually, D does quite a bit of that. For example, it deliberately does not
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:25:07 +0900, Mike Parker wrote:
On 6/14/2015 10:36 PM, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 13:02:03 UTC, Manfred Nowak wrote:
bitwise wrote:
for at least adding || so that code can be shared
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 08:25:08 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Not using version statements. They only apply to the module in
which they are declared. To use it in multiple modules, you
need static if and enums.
Ack… That was new to me. What is the reasoning behind this?
I like that better than
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 14:51:41 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]
There's something refreshing about the simplicity of that :)
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 11:26:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 11:05:36 UTC, ketmar wrote:
p.s. i.e. it boils down to simple thing: Walter don't like it.
period.
any rationalizing of that is pointless.
The most sensible thing to do with all these may/may not
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:48:31 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 08:25:08 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Not using version statements. They only apply to the module in which
they are declared. To use it in multiple modules, you need static if
and enums.
Ack⦠That was
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:58:16 -0400, John Colvin
john.loughran.col...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 14:51:41 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]
There's something refreshing about the simplicity of that :)
Faith inspiring...if He's so sure, maybe he actually does know what
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 15:10:10 UTC, ketmar wrote:
all in all, it creates more problems than it is trying to solve.
Sounds like a bad excuse to me… All you need to require is that
referenced global constants are actually… constant…
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 21:47:26 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 15:10:10 UTC, ketmar wrote:
all in all, it creates more problems than it is trying to solve.
Sounds like a bad excuse to me⦠All you need to require is that
referenced global constants are
On Monday, 15 June 2015 at 21:59:43 UTC, ketmar wrote:
nononono. i smell #define hell from C and all the problems it
brings, like careful ordering of #include.
Nah. #define does not define constants, but variable macros.
Constants are constant _everywhere_. If ordering can effect that
it
On 6/14/2015 10:36 PM, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 13:02:03 UTC, Manfred Nowak wrote:
bitwise wrote:
for at least adding || so that code can be shared between platforms?
Sureley it is a pita to write:
version(
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 21:51:43 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 17:29:17 -0400, Xiaoxi xia...@163.com
wrote:
On Saturday, 13 June 2015 at 21:19:28 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 17:16:04 -0400, weaselcat
weasel...@gmail.com wrote:
iirc this falls under the walter
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 11:33:52 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 11:26:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 11:05:36 UTC, ketmar wrote:
p.s. i.e. it boils down to simple thing: Walter don't like
it. period.
any rationalizing of that is pointless.
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:35:30 +, Joakim wrote:
It does require more definitions, but it's worth it. A simple example
like yours may seem excusable, but there's no way to limit such logic to
just simple instances. Walter is coming from long experience with this,
and even with my limited
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 13:02:03 UTC, Manfred Nowak wrote:
bitwise wrote:
for at least adding || so that code can be shared between
platforms?
Sureley it is a pita to write:
version( iOS) version= iOS;
else version( Android) version= Android;
else version= neither;
version( neither)
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 11:33:52 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Not all of them
http://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/39f2t7/planned_breaking_change_in_rust_11/
AFAIK in the discussions it becomes clear that just about
everyone want the change, but some want the change to be saved
for 2.0 out
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 11:03:49 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:35:30 +, Joakim wrote:
It does require more definitions, but it's worth it. A simple
example
like yours may seem excusable, but there's no way to limit
such logic to
just simple instances. Walter is coming
p.s. i.e. it boils down to simple thing: Walter don't like it. period.
any rationalizing of that is pointless.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 11:26:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 11:05:36 UTC, ketmar wrote:
p.s. i.e. it boils down to simple thing: Walter don't like it.
period.
any rationalizing of that is pointless.
The most sensible thing to do with all these may/may not
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
