"Adam D. Ruppe" wrote in message
news:vcadggwxsbxhdkjhr...@forum.dlang.org...
> On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 22:43:00 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> 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. (still do, when I ac
On 3/30/2012 5:25 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Ah, I know how to fix it. Mark such instantiations as "local" ones, so they are
mangled with the module name of where they were instantiated from.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7802
"Bernard Helyer" 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, I'm thin
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. (
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
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.
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.
- Ev
"Adam D. Ruppe" 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, nowadays I tend
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 a
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 o
"Adam D. Ruppe" 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?)
>
> My hypothesis is i
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.wbzdtbo0eav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:21:12 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> "Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
>> news:jl3n59$qf7$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> Of course, I don't expect software to be as super-fine-
"deadalnix" wrote in message
news:jl47vt$1old$5...@digitalmars.com...
> Le 30/03/2012 07:29, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
>> "Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
>> news:kgwyziwlndczqtafb...@forum.dlang.org...
>>> On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 01:55:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Yea, th
"Adam D. Ruppe" wrote in message
news:idxacwhjfymfbmezl...@forum.dlang.org...
> 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 an
On 3/30/2012 12:11 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:27:43 -0400, Walter Bright
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 you looked at my counter case
"deadalnix" wrote in message
news:jl47k0$1old$2...@digitalmars.com...
> 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
>
"Jacob Carlborg" 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.
>
Th
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:27:43 -0400, Walter Bright
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 you looked at my counter case in detail. Your idea leads to
two different
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 o
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 always another language
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:48:04 -0400, deadalnix wrote:
Le 30/03/2012 14:52, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:22:12 -0400, deadalnix
wrote:
Immagine you want to define your own to!xxx() for your type xxx. (It
is dumb case because you have toString, but an interesting exerc
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:39:09 -0400, Jacob Carlborg 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?
This C co
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,
Le 30/03/2012 14:52, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:22:12 -0400, deadalnix wrote:
Le 30/03/2012 14:13, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:10:14 -0400, deadalnix
wrote:
I would expect this not to work, because bar isn't defined in module1
and templa
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
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?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
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 difficul
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 pa
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 add
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 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 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:22:12 -0400, deadalnix wrote:
Le 30/03/2012 14:13, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:10:14 -0400, deadalnix
wrote:
I would expect this not to work, because bar isn't defined in module1
and template are supposed to use declaration scope, not insta
Le 30/03/2012 02:10, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:21:41 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/rif9x/uniform_function_call_syntax_for_the_d/
Andrei
Is anyone else's computer complaining about drdobbs having an invalid
certifi
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 p
Le 30/03/2012 14:13, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:10:14 -0400, deadalnix 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 t
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:10:14 -0400, deadalnix 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 now. But consider that
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 07:29, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:kgwyziwlndczqtafb...@forum.dlang.org...
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 01:55:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Yea, that occurred to me, too.I've been starting to
think
more and more that the "everything in
Le 30/03/2012 04:13, Adam D. Ruppe a écrit :
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 01:55:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I'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 "p
On 2012-03-30 10:36, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 3/30/12, 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.
Ignoring that there are still a few import bugs, you can split
functionality into mul
Le 30/03/2012 01:34, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:53:57 -0400, Jesse Phillips
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 any other module, so std.algo
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 som
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 "fo
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
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 metho
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:21:12 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Nick Sabalausky" 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.
Contrary to
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? Oth
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 02:42:03 -0400, Walter Bright
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. Like Steven said, to *get*
On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 01:55:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Yea, that occurred to me, too. I'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 "package".
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 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 a
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:jl3qds$10ga$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 3/30/2012 12:18 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> While there are definitely times I need to access private state across
>> separate components within a module, I find such cases are fairly
>> uncommon,
>> so I question t
On 3/30/12, Walter Bright wrote:
> There has been a trend in Phobos of having some truly gigantic modules. I
> believe this is indicative of a problem in the language.
Ignoring that there are still a few import bugs, you can split
functionality into multiple modules and use one module per package
or just use http://cdburnerxp.se/
Am 30.03.2012 10:30, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:jl3l0c$jn2$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 3/29/2012 7:05 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I don't understand why people think it's ok for basic, basic shit that
would
have ran fine
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:jl3l0c$jn2$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 3/29/2012 7:05 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> I don't understand why people think it's ok for basic, basic shit that
>> would
>> have ran fine on a Pentium 1 (and less) to now require what quite
>> literally
>> is a su
On 3/30/2012 12:18 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
While there are definitely times I need to access private state across
separate components within a module, I find such cases are fairly uncommon,
so I question the wisdom of making it the default behavior.
If your module has grown so large that you
On 03/30/2012 01:45 AM, bearophile wrote:
Timon Gehr:
I think the article does not mention that it also works for primitive types.
But there is a small problem with primitive properties:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7773
Bye,
bearophile
Yes, I have never understood why bui
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:jl3n59$qf7$1...@digitalmars.com...
> "Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message
> news:jl3kar$ie4$1...@digitalmars.com...
>> On 2012-03-30 04:05, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "Walter Bright" wrote in message
True, but I upgraded recently to 64 bit Win 7,
"Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message
news:jl3kar$ie4$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 2012-03-30 04:05, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Walter Bright" wrote in message
>>>
>>> True, but I upgraded recently to 64 bit Win 7, with a 6 core processor
>>> and
>>> SSD drive. Reddit seems a lot zippier :-)
>>
>>
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:jl3kkf$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
>> benefit there. Li
59 matches
Mail list logo
