On Thursday, 29 March 2012 at 00:21:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/rif9x/uniform_function_call_syntax_for_the_d/
Andrei
The primitives/utility distinction is an idea I've thought about
a lot. UFCS is justifiable not only as a syntactic
On 2012-03-30 04:05, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Walter Brightnewshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
True, but I upgraded recently to 64 bit Win 7, with a 6 core processor and
SSD drive. Reddit seems a lot zippier :-)
I don't understand why people think it's ok for basic, basic shit that
On 3/29/2012 6:57 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
How the heck does that improve encapsualtion? With D's implicit friends, it
*doesn't*, it's just shifting things around. There is NO encapsualtion
benefit there. Like Steven said, to *get* the encapsualtion, you have to
create a whole new module to
On 3/29/2012 7:05 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I don't understand why people think it's ok for basic, basic shit that would
have ran fine on a Pentium 1 (and less) to now require what quite literally
is a super-fucking-computer-on-the-desktop just to run acceptably.
Seriously, what the fuck's the
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:jl3kkf$j4b$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 3/29/2012 6:57 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
How the heck does that improve encapsualtion? With D's implicit friends,
it
*doesn't*, it's just shifting things around. There is NO encapsualtion
Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote in message
news:jl3kar$ie4$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 2012-03-30 04:05, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Walter Brightnewshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
True, but I upgraded recently to 64 bit Win 7, with a 6 core processor
and
SSD drive. Reddit seems a lot
Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:jl3n59$qf7$1...@digitalmars.com...
Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote in message
news:jl3kar$ie4$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 2012-03-30 04:05, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Walter Brightnewshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
True, but I upgraded
On 03/30/2012 01:45 AM, bearophile wrote:
Timon Gehr:
I think the article does not mention that it also works for primitive types.
But there is a small problem with primitive properties:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7773
Bye,
bearophile
Yes, I have never understood why
On 3/30/2012 12:18 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
While there are definitely times I need to access private state across
separate components within a module, I find such cases are fairly uncommon,
so I question the wisdom of making it the default behavior.
If your module has grown so large that
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:jl3l0c$jn2$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 3/29/2012 7:05 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I don't understand why people think it's ok for basic, basic shit that
would
have ran fine on a Pentium 1 (and less) to now require what quite
or just use http://cdburnerxp.se/
Am 30.03.2012 10:30, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
Walter Brightnewshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:jl3l0c$jn2$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 3/29/2012 7:05 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I don't understand why people think it's ok for basic, basic shit
On 3/30/12, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
There has been a trend in Phobos of having some truly gigantic modules. I
believe this is indicative of a problem in the language.
Ignoring that there are still a few import bugs, you can split
functionality into multiple modules and
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:jl3qds$10ga$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 3/30/2012 12:18 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
While there are definitely times I need to access private state across
separate components within a module, I find such cases are fairly
uncommon,
On 03/30/2012 02:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Eh? Other people have voiced concerns over that since waaay back in even
pre-D1 times. In particular, many people have argued for allowing modules
with the same name as a package. Ie: you could have both module foo and
module foo.bar.
This is
On 3/30/2012 2:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Andrei and I have talked about it, and we think it is because of
difficulties in breaking a module up into submodules of a package.
We think it's something we need to address.
Eh? Other people have voiced concerns over that since waaay back in even
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 01:55:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Yea, that occurred to me, too. wishful musingI've been
starting to think
more and more that the everything in a module is a friend was
a mistake,
and that we should have instead just had a module access
specifier like we
have
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 02:42:03 -0400, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 3/29/2012 6:57 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
How the heck does that improve encapsualtion? With D's implicit
friends, it
*doesn't*, it's just shifting things around. There is NO encapsualtion
benefit there.
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 10:22:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/30/2012 2:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Andrei and I have talked about it, and we think it is
because of
difficulties in breaking a module up into submodules of a
package.
We think it's something we need to address.
Eh?
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:21:12 -0400, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:jl3n59$qf7$1...@digitalmars.com...
Yea, I've seen that. It's a very good article, though. Although I've
been
saying this since before that article, and even before multi-cores.
Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/29/2012 5:09 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
The reason being, if you change anything in class A, you do not have
to worry
about the implementation of getXSquared, because it simply has no
access to the
private implementation. You only have to worry about internal
On 2012-03-30 10:20, Walter Bright wrote:
There has been a trend in Phobos of having some truly gigantic modules.
I believe this is indicative of a problem in the language. Andrei and I
have talked about it, and we think it is because of difficulties in
breaking a module up into submodules of a
Le 30/03/2012 11:40, bls a écrit :
On 03/30/2012 02:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Eh? Other people have voiced concerns over that since waaay back in even
pre-D1 times. In particular, many people have argued for allowing modules
with the same name as a package. Ie: you could have both module
Le 30/03/2012 12:57, foobar a écrit :
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 10:22:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/30/2012 2:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Andrei and I have talked about it, and we think it is because of
difficulties in breaking a module up into submodules of a package.
We think it's
Le 30/03/2012 01:34, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:53:57 -0400, Jesse Phillips
jessekphillip...@gmail.com wrote:
I won't be going out of my way to check this, but there is a mention
of adding the range primatives. This works, but it doesn't make the
class a range for
On 2012-03-30 10:36, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 3/30/12, Walter Brightnewshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
There has been a trend in Phobos of having some truly gigantic modules. I
believe this is indicative of a problem in the language.
Ignoring that there are still a few import bugs, you can
Le 30/03/2012 04:13, Adam D. Ruppe a écrit :
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 01:55:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
wishful musingI've been starting to think
more and more that the everything in a module is a friend was a
mistake,and that we should have instead just had a module
access specifier like
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:10:14 -0400, deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com wrote:
I would expect this not to work, because bar isn't defined in module1
and template are supposed to use declaration scope, not instantiation
scope (unless it is mixin template).
Right, I think it's the way it works
On 2012-03-30 11:15, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I thought that was a deliberate Phobos style convention. I'm certain I
remember you and/or Andrei talking here about a year or two ago about how
you didn't want Phobos modules broken up into separate implemetation
modules.
I recognize that as well.
Le 30/03/2012 14:13, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:10:14 -0400, deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com wrote:
I would expect this not to work, because bar isn't defined in module1
and template are supposed to use declaration scope, not instantiation
scope (unless it is mixin
On 03/30/2012 05:06 AM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 30/03/2012 11:40, bls a écrit :
On 03/30/2012 02:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Eh? Other people have voiced concerns over that since waaay back in even
pre-D1 times. In particular, many people have argued for allowing
modules
with the same name as a
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:22:12 -0400, deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 30/03/2012 14:13, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:10:14 -0400, deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I would expect this not to work, because bar isn't defined in module1
and template are
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 11:21:02 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
4. Blow in bottom of cartridge, even though the pins are clean
and free of dust (did this actually ever do anything?)
My hypothesis is it was actually the moisture that
made a better connection.
I'd like to test this now...
On 2012-03-30 14:07, deadalnix wrote:
all.d this the de facto standard here. I think it should become an
official guideline.
Why can't we get import foo.*;, then we don't have to relay on guidelines.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 12:10:32 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
For the ease of distribution, you can use a module with public
import in it.
There's still a few things I don't like though, about
downloading and compiling several modules.
When it is just one, you can download the single
file and
On 3/30/12 3:20 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
There has been a trend in Phobos of having some truly gigantic modules.
I believe this is indicative of a problem in the language. Andrei and I
have talked about it, and we think it is because of difficulties in
breaking a module up into submodules of a
Le 30/03/2012 16:24, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
On 3/30/12 3:20 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
There has been a trend in Phobos of having some truly gigantic modules.
I believe this is indicative of a problem in the language. Andrei and I
have talked about it, and we think it is because of
On 2012-03-30 16:17, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 12:10:32 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
For the ease of distribution, you can use a module with public import
in it.
There's still a few things I don't like though, about
downloading and compiling several modules.
When it is just
On 3/30/12 9:32 AM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 30/03/2012 16:24, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
On 3/30/12 3:20 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
There has been a trend in Phobos of having some truly gigantic modules.
I believe this is indicative of a problem in the language. Andrei and I
have talked about it,
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:39:09 -0400, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2012-03-30 14:52, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Why would there be ambiguities? Unlike C include files, D modules are
consistently compiled, unaffected by importing other modules.
What about static-if and string mixins?
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:48:04 -0400, deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 30/03/2012 14:52, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:22:12 -0400, deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Immagine you want to define your own to!xxx() for your type xxx. (It
is dumb case because you
On 3/29/2012 4:34 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
But I realized after typing about 2 messages in response to this (and deleting
them), you are right, there is a fundamental problem here. Because the template
instantiation is based solely on the type. It does *not* include the type and
whatever
Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote in message
news:jl4d2e$24i1$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 2012-03-30 14:07, deadalnix wrote:
all.d this the de facto standard here. I think it should become an
official guideline.
Why can't we get import foo.*;, then we don't have to relay on
guidelines.
The
On 3/30/2012 12:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:27:43 -0400, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
wrote:
I would argue that:
3. An extension method for an argument of type template parameter T will be
looked up only in the instantiation scope.
I don't think
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:op.wbzdtbo0eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:21:12 -0400, Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote:
Nick Sabalausky a@a.a wrote in message
news:jl3n59$qf7$1...@digitalmars.com...
Of course, I don't expect software to be
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:udpabjwyzxlollbiz...@forum.dlang.org...
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 11:21:02 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
4. Blow in bottom of cartridge, even though the pins are clean and free
of dust (did this actually ever do anything?)
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 21:03:21 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Problem is, it also corrodes the connectors.
Yea. But oh well, it can't be too bad... my old games
all still work!
Though, nowadays I tend to prefer the emulators. I have
a playstation controller on usb, which works for all
the
Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/30/2012 4:24 AM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
I think it's far superior to the explicit friend thing in C++.
Just curious. Did you take it from Delphi? :-)
No. I've never looked at Delphi in detail.
But in any case, for any language feature, there's
Adam D. Ruppe destructiona...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:ftnddrqdfbrtxiiwe...@forum.dlang.org...
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 21:03:21 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Problem is, it also corrodes the connectors.
Yea. But oh well, it can't be too bad... my old games
all still work!
Though,
Eeewww, I hate playing games on a PC:
- Too many other processes to screw up the experience.
Maybe if you were basing your experiences off of Windows 95.
- I spent sooo many hours every day *working* at the computer
desk, I
*don't* want to be be glued to it for my entertainment, too.
-
On 3/30/2012 12:36 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/30/2012 12:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:27:43 -0400, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
wrote:
I would argue that:
3. An extension method for an argument of type template parameter T will be
looked up only
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 22:43:00 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Oh *definitely*. BTW, Wii homebrew is *fantastic* for that.
I don't have one of those thingys though.
But that would *never* happen under US-style IP law.
You know what's funny: I used to use an Atari ac adapter
for my Sega.
Bernard Helyer b.hel...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:jiioyfihtaqhpjafg...@forum.dlang.org...
Eeewww, I hate playing games on a PC:
- Too many other processes to screw up the experience.
Maybe if you were basing your experiences off of Windows 95.
Actually, it was pretty good back then,
52 matches
Mail list logo
