On 7/17/21 8:52 PM, someone wrote:
> I am a self-taught programmer
Same here.
> well before college
Not here because I had access to a Sinclair Spectrum only in 1985. :/
> I have a degree in electronics engineering
Same here.
> one of the things that I felt in love with when I was first exp
On Sunday, 18 July 2021 at 01:49:11 UTC, Brian Tiffin wrote:
It's our best hope. Self taught programming is scary. School
taught programming is scary. Corporate taught programming is
scary. *Practice makes perfect? No, practice makes permanent.*
The sanest path forward for the profession
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 21:01:00 UTC, Adam Ruppe wrote:
From the interface perspective: are these signatures identical
or not ?
No, they are very different.
This helped me solve an issue that I carried since a few days ago:
I have an interface with function members *not* being declared
On 7/17/21 6:49 PM, Brian Tiffin wrote:
> *Practice makes perfect? No, practice makes permanent.*
One reference for that quote is "Classical Guitar Pedagogy" by Anthony
Glise, Chapter Nine--Practicing. ;)
Ali
On Sunday, 18 July 2021 at 00:00:01 UTC, zjh wrote:
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 22:40:35 UTC, someone wrote:
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 21:46:38 UTC, Jack Applegame
wrote:
This must be `Forum Oriented Programming`.
It's our best hope. Self taught programming is scary. School
taught prog
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 22:40:35 UTC, someone wrote:
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 21:46:38 UTC, Jack Applegame wrote:
This must be `Forum Oriented Programming`.
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 22:48:00 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 22:43:15 UTC, someone wrote:
So the lesson learned is that interfaces can also mandate
member function's parameter attributes then ... right ?
A subclass must accept anything the parent class can, but i
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 22:43:15 UTC, someone wrote:
So the lesson learned is that interfaces can also mandate
member function's parameter attributes then ... right ?
A subclass must accept anything the parent class can, but it can
also make it stricter if you want.
class Base {
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 21:46:38 UTC, Jack Applegame wrote:
Just remove `ref`, because in D clasess themselves are
references.
All refs are goners now; thanks :) !
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 21:01:00 UTC, Adam Ruppe wrote:
No, they are very different.
So the lesson learned is that interfaces can also mandate member
function's parameter attributes then ... right ?
But you also don't gain much from const here and that ref is
probably actively harmful
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 21:02:38 UTC, Adam Ruppe wrote:
Why are you using ref here at all?
Muscle memory I suppose; objects need to be passed by reference,
these are the things I'll need to be re-wired to in D.
You probably shouldn't be using it. But if it is legitimately
needed you c
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 20:49:58 UTC, someone wrote:
The following gives me a compiler error when I add the second
parameter:
is not an lvalue and cannot be modified
```d
public bool add(
ref classTickerID robjTickerID,
ref classExchanges robjExchanges = null /// needing this
option
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 20:42:06 UTC, someone wrote:
From the interface perspective: are these signatures identical
or not ?
No, they are very different.
But you also don't gain much from const here and that ref is
probably actively harmful so i wouldn't use them here.
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 20:49:58 UTC, someone wrote:
ref classTickerID robjTickerID
Why are you using ref here at all?
You probably shouldn't be using it. But if it is legitimately
needed you can do a pointer instead of ref.
The following gives me a compiler error when I add the second
parameter:
is not an lvalue and cannot be modified
```d
public bool add(
ref classTickerID robjTickerID,
ref classExchanges robjExchanges = null /// needing this
optional
) {
}
```
If I take out the null then the paramete
```d
public interface intefaceWhatever {
public bool doSomething(
dstring lstrID,
classX robjX
);
}
```
vs
```d
public interface intefaceWhatever {
public bool doSomething(
const dstring lstrID,
ref classX robjX
);
}
```
From the interface perspecti
On 17.07.21 14:56, Dennis wrote:
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 12:05:44 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
Hm, as far as I understand, "strongly pure" doesn't require
`immutable` parameters. `const` should be enough. The spec says: "A
strongly pure function has no parameters with mutable indirections" [1].
On 18/07/2021 12:56 AM, Dennis wrote:
I don't know whether the spec or code is correct.
Unless otherwise specified, the code is authoritative.
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 12:05:44 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
Hm, as far as I understand, "strongly pure" doesn't require
`immutable` parameters. `const` should be enough. The spec
says: "A strongly pure function has no parameters with mutable
indirections" [1].
I just took the description from
On 17.07.21 13:05, Dennis wrote:
There used to be a complex `isReturnIsolated` check, but the [fix for
issue 15660](https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8048) reduced it to a
check 'is the function strongly `pure`' which means 'parameters are
values or immutable'. To reduce code breakage, the 'str
On Saturday, 17 July 2021 at 05:44:24 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
I tried doing that, but `-preview=dip1000` causes trouble. This
fails:
(...)
I'm not sure what's going on.
I'm not completely caught up, but from what I see, pure and
immutable have a history of issues:
[Issue 11503 - Type system br
21 matches
Mail list logo
