std.range and opApply

2010-05-18 Thread bearophile
What's the attitude of std.range toward opApply? In some situations I use opApply (and I think some syntax sugar can be added to define a yield, to make a third way to define lazy iterables in D) and I'd like to write code like this too: take(Range(100), 8) import std.range: isInputRange, take;

Re: rebuild configuration

2010-05-18 Thread Bill Baxter
I recently ran into Gregor Richards unexpectedly outside the context of D. It sounds like he's busy with grad school and not likely to turn back to development of Rebuild/DSSS any time soon. --bb On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:45 PM, theambient wrote: > thanks. > > I've decided to quit rebuild too, b

Re: rebuild configuration

2010-05-18 Thread theambient
thanks. I've decided to quit rebuild too, besides I've found VisualD!!! -- Ruslan Mullakhmetov "Trass3r" сообщил(а) в новостях следующее:op.vcwiqeux3nc...@enigma.fem.tu-ilmenau.de... I recommend not to use rebuild anymore. It's horribly outdated. xfBuild is quite neat.

Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)

2010-05-18 Thread bearophile
Don: > D'oh, should read the title. This was a D1 question. Yes it's > intentional, and yes it's confusing. Sorry, I have added more confusion. I have added this, but I have used DMD2: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4203 Bye, bearophile

Re: Loop optimization

2010-05-18 Thread Walter Bright
bearophile wrote: Walter Bright: In my view, such switches are bad news, because:< The Intel compiler, Microsoft compiler, GCC and LLVM have a similar switch (fp:fast in the Microsoft compiler, -ffast-math on GCC, etc). So you might send your list of comments to the devs of each of those four

Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)

2010-05-18 Thread Don
Don wrote: bearophile wrote: Steven Schveighoffer: No, I was simply wrong :) I think it's by design. Which means the original bug report is valid. The original bug report is valid, but I don't understand that code still. Is the const implying a static only in some situations? Why is thi

Re: Three legitimate bugs? (D1.061)

2010-05-18 Thread Don
bearophile wrote: Steven Schveighoffer: No, I was simply wrong :) I think it's by design. Which means the original bug report is valid. The original bug report is valid, but I don't understand that code still. Is the const implying a static only in some situations? Why is this OK for the

Re: rebuild configuration

2010-05-18 Thread Trass3r
I recommend not to use rebuild anymore. It's horribly outdated. xfBuild is quite neat.