On Monday, March 06, 2017 20:27:56 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> While reviewing work on array comparisons, Vladimir found an odd issue:
>
> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17244
>
> Investigation reveals that during array comparison for inequality,
> structs are compared
On Monday, March 06, 2017 22:04:44 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 03/06/2017 05:19 PM, sarn wrote:
> > On Monday, 6 March 2017 at 10:12:09 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >> Excuse me if I'm asking a trivial question. Why not just seed it from
> >> /dev/urandom? (or equivalent on non-
On Friday, March 10, 2017 14:15:45 Nick Treleaven via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 01:10:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 01:07:33AM +, XavierAP via
> >
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >> The web reference tersely says under its *Slice* Operator
> >> Overlo
On Friday, March 10, 2017 10:43:43 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 07:41:31AM -0800, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2017 14:15:45 Nick Treleaven via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> > > On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 01:10:
On Friday, March 10, 2017 14:07:59 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:36:35PM -0800, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > I can certainly understand that there are folks who really do care
> > about this stuff, but it's completely outside
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 15:25:14 bauss via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Are there any news on DIP88? Will it be implemented?, when?, is
> there an implementation currently in development or?
>
> https://wiki.dlang.org/DIP88
It has never been approved. and as mentioned on the main DIPs page on the
wi
Okay, I'm sorry, but this is a wall of text, and I don't know how to
actually make it short. If you really want the TLDR version, look for the
=='s at the bottom which mark off the conclusion, but you're not going to
understand the reasoning if you skip the wall of text. Now, to the post...
Recent
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 09:02:53 Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 03:23:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > ...
>
> First off, I'd like to point out that creating specific overloads
> for alias this-ed structs is a bad idea, because you just have to
> ask the u
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 01:26:08 Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I completely agree that in general, we should avoid implicit conversions
> with functions.
In case it wasn't clear from the context, I meant specifically with
templated functions.
- Jonathan M Davis
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 17:22:09 Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 09:26:08 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > and in that case, we're stuck doing _something_ to accept the
> > implicit conversions, or we break code.
>
> Sorry wrote that at 4 in the morning. Shoul
On Monday, March 13, 2017 12:08:12 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 2) The /* user-readable constraints */ ought to be one of a small
> number of self-describing templates that tell the user exactly what the
> *intent* of the function is (note, *intent*, as in, implementation
> limitations sh
On Monday, March 13, 2017 23:40:55 Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 3/13/17 8:08 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > Ugh. What a horrible mess!
> >
> > I think, instead of wading through the specifics and losing sight of the
> > forest for the myriad trees, we should take a s
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 11:38:21 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 04:00:57PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2017 23:40:55 Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > This is IMHO t
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 08:27:23 Suliman via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 20:21:44 UTC, aberba wrote:
> > Amazon S3 seem like a common solution for object storage these
> > days[1] but I'm seeing almost no activity in this area (stable
> > native D API). Why?
> >
> > [1]
On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 10:17:41 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 07:21:05PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I'd argue that the same reasoning applies to all D libraries, not just
> Phobos: implementation details like optimiz
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 12:55:32 Sebastiaan Koppe via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 March 2017 at 07:44:59 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > So, if we deprecated isSomeString, we'd be telling a lot of
> > folks to change their code when it's perfectly fine as-is. I
> > agree that i
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 19:53:14 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 3/16/17 9:44 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > I completely agree that we should try and make the template constraints
> > on public functions in Phobos - and other libraries be s
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 21:50:18 Sebastiaan Koppe via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 March 2017 at 17:12:05 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the nature of traits is such that altering them
> > in a fashion that includes a deprecation cycle really doesn't
> > work. Yo
On Friday, March 17, 2017 10:25:22 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 3/17/17 12:42 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > And
> > checking isSomeString with an enum is perfectly valid. It's just that
> > we'd like it to be false, wherea
On Monday, March 20, 2017 19:49:03 Yuxuan Shui via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> An auto ref function template should behave like a normal
> function template, but it doesn't.
>
> You can fully instantiate a function template by specifying all
> of its template parameters, but you can't do that with auto
On Monday, March 20, 2017 20:13:12 Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 19:57:03 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > Is this a bug?
>
> No, that's intentional, you have to merge the overload sets with
> alias, same as if you imported them from two separate modules.
>
> http:/
On Monday, March 20, 2017 13:20:52 Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> So, yes, this particular restriction can be annoying, but there is a good
> reason for the restriction (though the error message _is_ pretty bad), and
> I have no idea how we would fix the problem.
After think
On Monday, March 20, 2017 21:37:26 Yuxuan Shui via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 21:34:14 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 21:08:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> >
> > wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
> > This is a bit tedious because it requires you creating a new
> > fu
On Monday, March 20, 2017 22:14:37 Yuxuan Shui via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 21:53:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Monday, March 20, 2017 21:37:26 Yuxuan Shui via
> >
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
> > auto ref for non-templates would not be quite the same t
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 09:27:55 Yuxuan Shui via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 01:10:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Monday, March 20, 2017 22:14:37 Yuxuan Shui via
> >
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >> On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 21:53:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> >>
> >>
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 02:57:04 Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 17:16:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
>
> wrote:
> > I'm a bit confused. This got settled a while ago, in part to
> > avoid silly debates over the inconsequential. Our organization
> > pre
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 09:31:23 Георгий via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Well, I just suggest to add these 3 classes in std.exception.
>
> NotImplementedException : Exception
> UserInputException : Exception
> IOException : Exception
>
> What do you think?
IMHO, an exception about something not bei
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 22:39:14 rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> Does anybody know if we've solved @nogc exceptions? (I haven't needed
> them). If we haven't we should hold off on this.
If we have any hope of solving that, it's going to depend on the built-in
reference counting th
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 23:26:38 rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 23/03/2017 11:20 PM, Георгий wrote:
> > On Thursday, 23 March 2017 at 09:48:54 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 23, 2017 09:31:23 Георгий via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>
> >> If a function exists
On Friday, March 24, 2017 00:14:33 rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 24/03/2017 12:09 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 23, 2017 23:26:38 rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d
> >
> > wrote:
> >> On 23/03/2017 11:20 PM, Ге
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 21:34:45 Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 2017-03-23 20:47, Walter Bright wrote:
> > Thanks for expressing this better than I could have. Over time I've
> > found that standardized Exception types seem to become less and less
> > useful over just using "Excep
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 12:47:29 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 3/23/2017 9:44 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> Thanks for expressing this better than I could have. Over time I've found
> that standardized Exception types seem to become less a
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 22:41:39 Георгий via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 23 March 2017 at 22:12:23 UTC, Георгий wrote:
> > Is there the catch statements, that are active only for such
> > exceptions, that is match multiple types (implements all
> > enumerated interfaces) - if we want to
On Friday, March 24, 2017 11:00:20 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> All in all, it seems that Final, as currently implemented, really only
> makes sense for class types. It seems to have glaring holes and
> inconsistency problems with other types. (Just wait till I try it on a
> union... that
On Friday, March 24, 2017 12:23:23 Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I just wanted to say thank you for vibe.d, Sönke and Kai (for the
> book). I use vibe.d for all new web projects, and it's great.
> Less and less JS, more and more D. It's also very fast.
>
> The way we use it is that we set up lit
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 14:17:10 Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 2017-03-23 21:48, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > There are plenty of cases where all you care about is that something
> > went
> > wrong when calling a function and aren't go
On Sunday, March 26, 2017 14:51:28 Namespace via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 14:30:00 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> > On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 10:43:11 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> >> As you see from the above example D mangles the getClassConst
> >> as a "Class const * const" i
On Sunday, March 26, 2017 18:31:52 Jerry via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 15:29:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Personally, I don't think that the fact that you can't use
> > const for head-const in D is really a loss, since it's almost
> > never what you want. Tail-const
On Monday, March 27, 2017 20:41:51 kinke via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 27 March 2017 at 20:09:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > Whichever way it is mangled will gore someone's ox. D went with
> > the simplest mangling solution, which is to mangle all C++
> > const pointers as "head const".
>
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 20:07:01 Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 2017-03-28 11:25, Walter Bright wrote:
> > If you received an IOException instead, you're no better off.
>
> No, I agree. But I have not argued for or against a standardize
> exception hierarchy. I've argued that we ne
On Friday, March 31, 2017 15:51:33 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> The autotester is currently at FreeBSD 8.4. This is rather obsolete. The
> linker that is standard on 8.4 is causing problems:
>
>https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6564
>
> The oldest supported version of FreeBSD stands
On Friday, March 31, 2017 17:49:48 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> One of my longer term goals for DMD is to make it as lazy as possible -
> only parse and do semantic analysis if the result is actually needed. Not
> doing the parse for unused unittest blocks is a step in that direction.
>
On Sunday, April 02, 2017 11:47:52 Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 2017-04-02 11:22, Johan Engelen wrote:
> > Since 2.072, implicit string concatenation is deprecated [1].
> > Can someone give me a link to the discussion about this?
> >
> > I am wondering about the language spec change
On Sunday, April 02, 2017 10:55:22 Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, 2 April 2017 at 10:05:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 02, 2017 11:47:52 Jacob Carlborg via
> >
> > Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >> On 2017-04-02 11:22, Johan Engelen wrote:
> >> > Since 2.072, impl
On Sunday, April 02, 2017 20:40:15 Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I grabbed the official 10.3-CURRENT vm image from the freebsd website
> and gave it a whirl. For the 64 bit test run, the only failure was
> std.datetime unit tests failure. Apparently LocalTime().stdName is null
> and the
On Monday, April 03, 2017 14:00:53 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> The idea of this proposal is to make a nogc program much more achievable.
> Currently, in order to not link with the GC, you can't use exceptions (or
> at least not in a memory safe manner). A solution without memory safety
On Monday, April 03, 2017 15:20:23 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 4/3/2017 2:31 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > Yeah, the simple fact that you can't allocate exceptions in @nogc code
> > is
> > crippling to @nogc, and a lot of code tha
On Tuesday, April 04, 2017 16:42:53 Binarydepth via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> So I've been a member of Ask Ubuntu at Stack Exchange for a while
> now. I saw the tags could be useful here:
>
> Someone could search Metaprogramming, OOP, Imperative, Data type,
> Arrays and find something inside the DLear
On Tuesday, April 04, 2017 21:56:37 Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I feel dirty if I write `__gshared`. I sneeze when I read it.
Well, it was designed with C global variables in mind, and it's pretty risky
to use it for anything else, though you can get away with it if you're
careful. Howe
On Monday, April 10, 2017 23:08:17 David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> IIRC OCaml is also very much a statically linked affair. And how
> does Debian distribute Go binaries? Is there any issue with those
> being linked statically? If not, let's just distribute D
> libraries as source and com
On Monday, April 10, 2017 15:07:11 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 3:58 AM, Nick B wrote:
> >> Somebody has to work on it to move it forward - who do you propose
> >> should do it? We don't have a team anywhere whose job it is to create
> >> detailed proposals based on other p
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 01:05:10 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 4/10/2017 6:41 AM, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
> > I'm just curious: The proposal doesn't mention interop with C++
> > exception
> > handlers. I don't know the status of that so I'll just ask: Can C++ code
> > catch D excepti
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:40:34 Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 00:47:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Monday, April 10, 2017 23:08:17 David Nadlinger via [...]
> > Also, what are we even looking to distribute in debian? I would
> > have thought tha
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:25:09 Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Haskell and OCaml permanently rebuild the whole stack on every
> new compiler release, which is why they have permanent transition
> trackers[1], so they basically continuously rebuild. I want to
> avoid this at all cost
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 14:21:57 Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> This will *not* solve the issues with Phobos breakage though, as
> Phobos is a shared library.
It could always just be distributed as a static library. There arguably
isn't much point in distributing it as a shared libr
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 14:33:01 Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 14:26:37 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> > [...]
> > The problem with /usr/include/d is that is where .di files
> > would be located not .d. This would also match up with the
> > c/c++ usage o
On Monday, April 17, 2017 11:14:47 Shachar Shemesh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> scope(exit) is a much cleaner solution than a finally clause, but
> not as clean as RAII. If the language supports RAII, how come
> people are not using it?
Well, if you're talking managing memory, most folks just use th
On Monday, April 17, 2017 18:10:23 Jonas Drewsen via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 April 2017 at 08:01:02 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > On 2017-04-15 22:04, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
> > My initial reaction is that this is something that can be
> > implemented as library code if t
On Friday, April 21, 2017 17:20:14 Vasudev Ram via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I hope the question is self-evident from the message subject. If
> not, it means: what are D developers generally called (to
> indicate that they develop in D)? The question occurred to me
> somehow while browsin
On Wednesday, 3 May 2017 at 09:04:31 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 at 20:19:02 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Hi, I am very happy to see you soon at dconf.
And I apologize in advance for my nearly slideless talk.
Hope this time there is dmd on the machine!
Cheers Stefan
I'm guessi
On Sunday, April 2, 2017 8:40:15 PM CEST Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> I grabbed the official 10.3-CURRENT vm image from the freebsd website
> and gave it a whirl. For the 64 bit test run, the only failure was
> std.datetime unit tests failure. Apparently LocalTime().stdName is null
>
On Tuesday, May 09, 2017 07:13:31 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 5/8/2017 1:55 PM, John Carter wrote:
> > On Saturday, 6 May 2017 at 06:26:29 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> >> Walter: I believe memory safety will kill C.
> >
> > C/C++ has been granted an extension of life by the likes of valgrin
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 05:05:59 Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 05/09/2017 10:34 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > I even appreciate breakages that eventually force me to write more
> >
> > readable code! A not-so-recent example:
> >/* Used to work, oh, I forget whi
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 12:06:40 Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 05/10/2017 11:49 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 05:05:59 Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> >> On 05/09/2017 10:34 AM, H. S. Teoh via D
On Monday, May 08, 2017 23:15:12 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Recently I've had the dubious privilege of being part of a department
> wide push on the part of my employer to audit our codebases (mostly C,
> with a smattering of C++ and other code, all dealing with various levels
> of netwo
On Thursday, May 11, 2017 22:16:22 Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 May 2017 at 11:51:03 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> > So I went "I know, I'll just use a container". I tried Ubuntu
> > Zesty in docker. That doesn't build dmd off the bat either, it
> > fails with PI
On Friday, May 12, 2017 08:49:10 Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 May 2017 at 22:16:22 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 10 May 2017 at 11:51:03 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> >> So I went "I know, I'll just use a container". I tried Ubuntu
> >> Zesty in doc
On Friday, May 12, 2017 04:08:52 Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> And I am sure Walter is right about the importance of memory
> safety. But outside of certain areas D isn't in a battle with
> Rust; memory safety is one more appealing modern feature of D.
> To say it's important to get it
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 11:54:08 Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> DIP 1005 is titled "Dependency-Carrying Declarations".
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1005.md
>
> All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should
> occur in this thread. Due to DConf t
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 08:50:10 via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 12 May 2017 at 16:17:03 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> > The first stage of the formal review for DIP 1003 [1], "Remove
> > body as a Keyword", is now underway. From now until 11:59 PM ET
> > on May 26 (3:59 AM GMT on May 27), the
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 20:52:48 Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 13.05.2017 16:17, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:21:12PM +, Fool via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 13 May 2017 at 12:53:33 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >>> 3)
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 08:39:12 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 5/12/2017 9:17 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
> > The first stage of the formal review for DIP 1003 [1], "Remove body as a
> > Keyword", is now underway.
>
> A combination of Options 1 and 2:
>
> 1. Introduce 'function' as an alte
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 12:50:37 Meta via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 at 10:28:09 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> > On Monday, 15 May 2017 at 01:18:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >> So, while I do like the idea of getting the word body back as
> >> an identifier, what really appeals to
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 17:22:12 Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 15.05.2017 03:18, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > So, while I do like the idea of getting the word body back as an
> > identifier, what really appeals to me here is getting rid of the need
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 23:17:10 Mike B Johnson via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 at 21:08:34 UTC, Benro wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 at 17:14:49 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> >> For example the build.bat fix could have been made and merged
> >> in 10 min. if you would have took t
On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 01:01:29 MysticZach via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I think there are several issues at hand, and they need to be
> dealt with individually:
>
> 1. `body` is a very useful identifier. It would be nice to have
> it available.
>
> 2. Contract syntax is too verbose.
>
> 3. a. Som
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 15:18:00 Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I just got around to watching Eduard Staniloiu's talk at DConf
> [1] about the collections library he was working on. One thing
> seemed odd, in that Eduard seems to be saying that the container
> and the range over the con
On Friday, May 19, 2017 1:22:50 AM PDT Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> First off, how are you going to do something like a map over a
> immutable container then, as map uses the range primitives and
> not foreach? There's no reason in principal that that should
> cause an issue. But with
On Friday, May 19, 2017 1:35:07 PM PDT Tobias Mueller via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> I don't really understand why there is so much bashing of other
> languages on this forum (not just Rust, but also Java, C, C++,
> etc). For me personally, this leaves a bad taste and makes the D
> community look unfr
On Friday, May 19, 2017 8:31:52 PM PDT Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 19 May 2017 at 20:23:16 UTC, Dominikus Dittes Scherkl
>
> wrote:
> > On Friday, 19 May 2017 at 17:47:42 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> >> On Friday, 19 May 2017 at 17:34:28 UTC, Dominikus Dittes
> >>
> >> Scherkl wr
On Friday, May 19, 2017 9:04:24 PM PDT Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 19 May 2017 at 21:01:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Wait, what? Doesn't D specifically _not_ have SFINAE? You can
> > use static if to test what compiles, and the branch whose
> > condition compiles is the
On Friday, May 19, 2017 3:45:28 PM PDT Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> DIP 1008 is titled "Exceptions and @nogc".
>
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1008.md
>
> All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should
> occur in this thread. The review period will e
On Friday, May 19, 2017 11:35:54 AM PDT H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I agree with this, and having looked at std.experimental.allocator
> recently, I think Andrei may even have made certain design decisions
> with this in mind. I think the ideal goal (I'm not sure how achievable
> it is)
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:02:10 AM PDT Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 5/19/2017 8:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > And the reality of the matter is that using the GC has real benefits,
> > and
> > trying to avoid it comes at a real cost,
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 1:36:14 PM PDT Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 May 2017 at 13:06:01 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Yeah, especially when you're not allowed to manually allocate
> > memory in CTFE. :)
> >
> > And given that Stephan thinks that ref is too hard to i
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 3:05:44 PM PDT Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 May 2017 at 14:59:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
>
> wrote:
> > On Saturday, 20 May 2017 at 13:36:14 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
> >> unions and other ABI-related things will be tricky.
> >
> > Isn't the union
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:34:09 PM PDT H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 07:53:58AM +, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> > On Saturday, 20 May 2017 at 07:02:10 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > > Also, have a GC makes CTFE real nice.
> >
> > Having to implement
On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 13:18:37 Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 05/24/2017 08:19 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On 24 May 2017 at 09:31, Joakim via Digitalmars-d
> >
> > Hehe, I'm honoured to be quoted... verbatim :)
>
> Sorry for trimming the last part of your quote. ;)
Well,
On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 16:56:49 Timothee Cour via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I could look at source to figure it out but others might wonder and I
> couldn't find it in the docs in
> https://dlang.org/library/std/functional/memoize.html whether memoize
> works per thread (thread local) or globally
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 13:23:57 Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 10:42:44 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> > Static libraries that are
> > - compiled with dmd 2.074 (maybe previous versions too)
> > - call format() in their API
> >
> > will be responsible for strange errors w
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 10:41:23 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 03:51:05 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
> > On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 01:17:41 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
> >> thanks; i think docs for this should still make that clear.
> >>
> >> How abou
On Thursday, May 25, 2017 19:57:17 Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 14:56:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > able to do so with the excuse that shared is not complete. But
> > the idea that you do almost nothing with an object that is
> > shared without c
On Saturday, May 27, 2017 07:20:10 Kagamin via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 14:56:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > But we do need to get this ironed out well enough that we can
> > definitely tell folks that shared is what it's going to be so
> > that they'll stop using __g
On Saturday, May 27, 2017 16:37:04 Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> > Monitor (i.e. for "synchronized") and
>
> Wasn't this going to be removed?
There was definitely talk of doing it, but it's never actually happened. I
don't think that it was actually decided that we would though,
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 17:54:30 WebFreak001 via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I think the user should be enforced to use foo(ref input) instead
> of foo(input) as it greatly increases understanding of the code
> on the caller side and another advantage is that programs
> analyzing the AST can better unde
On Monday, May 29, 2017 01:17:46 Corey Lubin via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 at 00:05:54 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> > On 05/23/2017 04:31 PM, Joakim wrote:
> >> http://ddili.org/AliCehreli_CppNow_2017_Competitive_Advantage_with_D.no
> >> _pause.pdf
> "Functions defined as @safe
On Monday, May 29, 2017 07:39:40 Dukc via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> But what would be worth a consideration, is that perhaps one
> should be allowed to pass rvalues as reference with something
> like this? According to TDPL, ref arguments do not take rvalues
> to prevent bugs where you accidently copy
On Monday, May 29, 2017 08:22:23 Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 07:51:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > I expect that we're going to see a DIP related to rvalue
> > references at some point here, because some of the folks
> > (particularly the game folks
On Monday, May 29, 2017 09:17:31 Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 08:41:05 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > With C++, if you have const T&, it will accept both lvalues and
> > rvalues. A number of folks (particularly those writing games)
> > want an equivale
On Monday, May 29, 2017 17:19:27 Stanislav Blinov via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> `in` is `const scope`
Walter recently changed is that in is now just const, because scope was not
properly implemented previously, and folks were using in all over the place,
so the odds of code breaking when scope was pr
1201 - 1300 of 2444 matches
Mail list logo
