On Thursday, 12 April 2018 at 06:08:39 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 April 2018 at 20:45:15 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
* Templates kind of muddy the waters being conpiled with the
flags of caller (another reason why they are a mess). Meaning
they will work with contracts if caller chos
On Wednesday, 11 April 2018 at 20:45:15 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
* Templates kind of muddy the waters being conpiled with the
flags of caller (another reason why they are a mess). Meaning
they will work with contracts if caller choses to have debug
build.
Template can call user code, but
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:45:15PM +, Dmitry Olshansky via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
> What would have made contract trully powerful for me is them being
> emitted at caller side. This way if I use a release build of library
> but debugging my app I still get my stupidity guarded by
On Friday, 6 April 2018 at 12:26:36 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Congratulations to Zach Tollen and everyone who worked on DIP
1009. It took a painful amount of time to get it through the
process, but it had finally come out of the other side with an
approval. The proposal itself was approved early
On Wednesday, 11 April 2018 at 16:16:33 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
If we actually end up with a language improvement that makes it
so that contracts are compiled in based on the caller instead
of the callee, then I'll start using contracts. Until then, I'm
not generally going to bother.
My
On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 07:47:14 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:43:00PM -0600, Jonathan M Davis via
> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...]
>
> > IMHO, for contracts to be worth much outside of the inheritance case,
> > we'd need to do something like m
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 05:23:58AM +, really? via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Friday, 6 April 2018 at 17:36:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, I think having expression syntax will make contracts more
> > readable. We'll just have to see.
> >
>
> Sorry, but I fail to see how (1
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:43:00PM -0600, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
> IMHO, for contracts to be worth much outside of the inheritance case,
> we'd need to do something like make it so that contracts are compiled
> in based on whether the caller used -release or not r
On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 05:23:58 really? via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Friday, 6 April 2018 at 17:36:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > Yeah, I think having expression syntax will make contracts more
> > readable. We'll just have to see.
>
> Sorry, but I fail to see how (1) is more reada
On Friday, 6 April 2018 at 17:36:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Yeah, I think having expression syntax will make contracts more
readable. We'll just have to see.
Sorry, but I fail to see how (1) is more readable than (2)
(1)
in(s.length > 0, "s must not be empty")
(2)
in { assert(s.length > 0
On 07.04.2018 00:45, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06.04.2018 19:36, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 05:02:54PM +, Adam D. Ruppe via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On Friday, 6 April 2018 at 16:57:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Now, if the contracts ended up in the documentation or someth
On Saturday, 7 April 2018 at 16:10:41 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
What's the philosophy around accepted DIPs containing multiple
suggestions/alternatives. For example, this DIP mentions three
alternatives for the "out" syntax [1], it's not crystal clear
which one was actually accepted.
I think
On Saturday, 7 April 2018 at 20:06:19 UTC, Jordan Wilson wrote:
Although https://dlang.org/spec/contracts.html will surely be
updated with this new syntax, I think a blog post would also
help in this regard, I think.
Jordan
That's a good idea. I'll start on one.
On Friday, 6 April 2018 at 21:31:42 UTC, Zach Tollen wrote:
I think we've now given Design-by-Contract a really good chance
of becoming commonly used in the D wild. Let's see what happens!
Although https://dlang.org/spec/contracts.html will surely be
updated with this new syntax, I think a
On 2018-04-06 14:26, Mike Parker wrote:
Congratulations to Zach Tollen and everyone who worked on DIP 1009. It
took a painful amount of time to get it through the process, but it had
finally come out of the other side with an approval. The proposal itself
was approved early on, but it needed qu
On 06.04.2018 19:36, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 05:02:54PM +, Adam D. Ruppe via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On Friday, 6 April 2018 at 16:57:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Now, if the contracts ended up in the documentation or something
My documentation generator suppor
On Friday, 6 April 2018 at 12:26:36 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Congratulations to Zach Tollen and everyone who worked on DIP
1009. It took a painful amount of time to get it through the
process, but it had finally come out of the other side with an
approval. The proposal itself was approved early
On Friday, 6 April 2018 at 12:26:36 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Congratulations to Zach Tollen and everyone who worked on DIP
1009.
Thanks. People reading the announcement should know that this DIP
was almost completely the result of a team effort. My original
draft was subject to significant and
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 05:02:54PM +, Adam D. Ruppe via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Friday, 6 April 2018 at 16:57:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Now, if the contracts ended up in the documentation or something
>
> My documentation generator supports contracts, but I found in
> pra
On Friday, 6 April 2018 at 16:57:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Now, if the contracts ended up in the documentation or something
My documentation generator supports contracts, but I found in
practice, most of them are so illegible it doesn't actually help
any to include them, so I never do.
On Friday, April 06, 2018 08:00:42 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 12:26:36PM +, Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> > Congratulations to Zach Tollen and everyone who worked on DIP 1009. It
> > took a painful amount of time to get it through
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 12:26:36PM +, Mike Parker via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> Congratulations to Zach Tollen and everyone who worked on DIP 1009. It
> took a painful amount of time to get it through the process, but it
> had finally come out of the other side with an approval.
WOOHOO!
On Friday, 6 April 2018 at 12:26:36 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Congratulations to Zach Tollen and everyone who worked on DIP
1009. It took a painful amount of time to get it through the
process, but it had finally come out of the other side with an
approval. The proposal itself was approved early
Congratulations to Zach Tollen and everyone who worked on DIP
1009. It took a painful amount of time to get it through the
process, but it had finally come out of the other side with an
approval. The proposal itself was approved early on, but it
needed quite a bit of revision to get to an accep
24 matches
Mail list logo
