On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:54:31 +0100, Namespace rswhi...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I am considering to rewrite Remus from the ground up.
Because I hope that Remus earn next time more interest, I would like to
vote or discuss the features.
Writing a D parser from the ground up, even if it's
On 2012-39-06 20:11, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
On 2012-11-06 19:24, David Nadlinger wrote:
You are right, UDAs must definitely leverage D's module system for
encapsulation/disambiguation. Use of string literals (which are
intrinsically »global«) as annotations needs to be explicitly
On 11/07/2012 08:08 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:k7cko9$hes$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 11/6/2012 6:10 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
My thoughts exactly. It reminds me of the horror of C++ exceptions. I
think it would be reasonable to
On 2012-10-31 12:30, Jordi Sayol wrote:
Congratulations for this new release!
New deb packages for vibe v0.7.9 available at https://code.google.com/p/d-apt/
When I make an apt-get update I get.
W: Failed to fetch http://d-apt.googlecode.com/files/Release Unable to
find expected entry
On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 13:01:52 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-11-07 12:05, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
OK, that's another thing. And maybe a reason for listening to people
having
more experience with UDAs than you.
For me the analogy with Exceptions is pretty good. The issues an
Don Clugston, el 7 de November a las 09:23 me escribiste:
If you have no idea what my point is, I'm probably wasting my time
working on D.
If you mean, we should be working on getting the existing stuff
working before we think about adding more stuff, I agree 100%.
I would say we're about
On 2012-11-07 13:08, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Isn't that how it works in Java? It's been a while since I've done much with
Java, but IIRC that's essentially how it works in Java.
Yes, exactly, just with a slightly different syntax.
Le 07/11/2012 13:01, Jacob Carlborg a écrit :
On 2012-11-07 12:05, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
OK, that's another thing. And maybe a reason for listening to people
having
more experience with UDAs than you.
For me the analogy with Exceptions is pretty good. The issues an
conveniences
of throwing
Le 07/11/2012 05:19, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 11/6/2012 7:52 PM, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
But I'm not sure at this point if that is the right thing to do.
Why?
D was fortunate in having 10 years of experience with C++'s exception
system to learn from. We don't have that with
Le 07/11/2012 10:13, Timon Gehr a écrit :
On 11/07/2012 08:08 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:k7cko9$hes$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 11/6/2012 6:10 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
My thoughts exactly. It reminds me of the horror of C++
Le 07/11/2012 09:23, Don Clugston a écrit :
If you mean, we should be working on getting the existing stuff working
before we think about adding more stuff, I agree 100%.
That is a good part of my point. The other part being that surprise
feature dropped in master, not only impair stability,
Timon Gehr timon.g...@gmx.ch wrote in message
news:k7d8n1$1o69$1...@digitalmars.com...
Most importantly, if users still want to experiment with anonymous
annotations, they still can:
[tuple(3)] class Blah {}
Then what does this particular restriction buy?
It makes it harder to do the
On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 at 08:26:25 UTC, Aziz K. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:54:31 +0100, Namespace
rswhi...@googlemail.com wrote:
I am considering to rewrite Remus from the ground up.
Because I hope that Remus earn next time more interest, I
would like to vote or discuss the
Le 07/11/2012 21:35, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 11/7/2012 4:01 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I start to more and more think it would be better to explicitly
require the
developer to declare an attribute, like:
attribute foo
{
string name;
}
@foo(asd) int a;
Adding a whole new aggregate type is
On 11/7/2012 4:01 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I start to more and more think it would be better to explicitly require the
developer to declare an attribute, like:
attribute foo
{
string name;
}
@foo(asd) int a;
Adding a whole new aggregate type is a pretty intrusive and major change.
On 11/7/2012 3:05 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
For me the analogy with Exceptions is pretty good. The issues an conveniences
of throwing anything or annotating a symbol with anything instead of just
type are pretty much the same.
That's a good point, I just want to wryly remark on the
On 2012-11-07 21:41, Walter Bright wrote:
Just functions? I thought one big use of UDAs was to mark classes as
serializable.
Exactly, the more we can annotated the better :)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2012-11-07 21:38, deadalnix wrote:
Adding a whole new aggregate type is a pretty intrusive and major change.
Is it? Just have it behave as a struct or class. But I guess the
suggestion below is just as good.
So let's defined in object.d the following :
@attribute struct attribute {}
First of all: Awesome.
Secondly: Fastest-growing thread ever? ;)
On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 16:45:20 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
First of all: Awesome.
Secondly: Fastest-growing thread ever? ;)
In Announce? Probably. In all of the D groups? Probably not. There have been
some _very_ active threads in the main newsgroup. This thread is quite tame in
On 11/7/2012 3:05 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
OK, that's another thing. And maybe a reason for listening to people having
more experience with UDAs than you.
For me the analogy with Exceptions is pretty good. The issues an conveniences
of throwing anything or annotating a symbol with anything
On 11/7/2012 1:45 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
First of all: Awesome.
Secondly: Fastest-growing thread ever? ;)
The historical UDA threads have been large, too.
Le 07/11/2012 23:20, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 11/7/2012 3:05 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
OK, that's another thing. And maybe a reason for listening to people
having
more experience with UDAs than you.
For me the analogy with Exceptions is pretty good. The issues an
conveniences
of throwing
Awesome. Lack of UDA has really caused some very ugly workarounds
in my code, and it's really nice to see that it's being solved
now. Probably one of the most important missing features I've
encountered.
I do agree however with preventing any built-in types / literals
being used as an
On 11/7/2012 2:40 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Java is mostly compile time (and optionally runtime). See
http://projectlombok.org/ for what can be done at compile time with attributes +
compiler hooks.
Doesn't putting compiler hooks in for them make them inherently global?
On 11/7/2012 3:06 PM, Kapps wrote:
I do agree however with preventing any built-in types / literals being used as
an annotation. It's just not safe, completely goes around the module system, and
is abused in the same way as it would be with C++ exceptions. In C# for example,
all attributes are
started a new thread on this over in digitalmars.D
On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 at 23:17:24 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Doesn't putting compiler hooks in for them make them inherently
global?
One of the previous threads put forth something like this:
template MyAttribute(alias subject, T... arguments) { /* some
implementation */
The
Le 08/11/2012 00:17, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 11/7/2012 2:40 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Java is mostly compile time (and optionally runtime). See
http://projectlombok.org/ for what can be done at compile time with
attributes +
compiler hooks.
Doesn't putting compiler hooks in for them make them
On 11/7/2012 4:12 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 08/11/2012 00:17, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 11/7/2012 2:40 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Java is mostly compile time (and optionally runtime). See
http://projectlombok.org/ for what can be done at compile time with
attributes +
compiler hooks.
Doesn't
Another interesting possible feature for Remus: as the usage of
immutable structs becomes more common in D code, it becomes more
useful a syntax to create an updated struct. Similar syntax is
present in F# and other functional languages.
struct Foo { int first, second, third; }
immutable f1 =
On 2012-11-08 02:49, Walter Bright wrote:
Yes, that makes the attribute global.
I don't actually know how this works in Java but if you are forced to
use the fully qualified name for the attribute it won't make the
attribute global.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2012-11-08 00:43, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
One of the previous threads put forth something like this:
template MyAttribute(alias subject, T... arguments) { /* some
implementation */
The attribute is a template that replaces the declaration. So you type:
[MyAttribute(foo)]
class Something {}
On Thursday, 8 November 2012 at 03:21:03 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Another interesting possible feature for Remus: as the usage of
immutable structs becomes more common in D code, it becomes
more useful a syntax to create an updated struct. Similar
syntax is present in F# and other functional
34 matches
Mail list logo
