On 6/13/2014 8:15 PM, Mathias LANG wrote:
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 11:31:10 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
13-Jun-2014 04:31, Walter Bright пишет:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3655
Heh, I had been under the impression was already Boost. :P
It's probably nice to have l
On 6/13/2014 4:31 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim to achieve
with that?
1. Boost is the least restrictive license
2. Minimize friction for adopting D
3. Harmonization with usage of Boost in the runtime library
4. Allow commerci
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 11:31:10 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
13-Jun-2014 04:31, Walter Bright пишет:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3655
It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what
we aim to achieve with that?
Make commercial companies contribute to
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 20:52:17 UTC, Kapps wrote:
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 20:29:46 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 17:12:44 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:49:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Virtual by default will not change. Being able t
Steven Schveighoffer:
To that end, I thought we were moving towards a more scalable
solution: like !final or final!false or final(false), which
could be nice for metaprogramming.
This is a small problem:
void foo(in int x) {
auto y = x;
y++; // error
}
The current solution is long
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 20:29:46 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 17:12:44 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:49:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the
"final:" label is nice to have but not a
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 17:12:44 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:49:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the
"final:" label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a
keyword for that doesn't scale - it would m
On 6/13/14, 10:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 6/13/2014 12:49 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Being able to negate the "final:"
label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that doesn't
scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo each label.
No it doesn't mean t
On 6/13/2014 12:49 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Being able to negate the "final:"
label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that doesn't
scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo each label.
No it doesn't mean that. "virtual" is very well established
indus
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:49:32 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Virtual by default will not change. Being able to negate the "final:"
label is nice to have but not a must. Adding a keyword for that doesn't
scale - it would mean we'd need to add one keyword to undo each label.
To that end,
On 6/13/14, 8:49 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:lndq8q$obh$1...@digitalmars.com...
> You did say that something with the same effect as 'virtual' was
going > in.
No.
I am certain either you or Walter did in the last 'final by default'
discussion.
Walt
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 22:25:23 UTC, Kapps wrote:
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 18:25:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/12/14, 6:34 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 June 2014 at 02:01:24 UTC, Brian Schott
wrote:
Please do not tag anything until we decide if "virtual" is a
keyword
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message news:lndq8q$obh$1...@digitalmars.com...
> You did say that something with the same effect as 'virtual' was going
> in.
No.
I am certain either you or Walter did in the last 'final by default'
discussion.
Please no new keyword for what can be done al
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 03:52:00 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/12/14, 8:49 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 6/12/2014 11:13 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/12/14, 7:26 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
It
1. allows escaping final, which we can't do without it or an
equivalent
2. does exa
13-Jun-2014 04:31, Walter Bright пишет:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3655
It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim to
achieve with that?
Make commercial companies contribute to DMD more freely?
There is no problem even with GPL.
Let t
On 6/12/14, 8:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3655
Seems you missed a few:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/search?q=Artistic+License&ref=cmdform
Another hint:
You should return an `int[2]` from `abc()` instead of `int[]`.
It's faster and doesn't require a heap allocation.
17 matches
Mail list logo
