newSeq() named inconsistently?

It's not unthinkable but I'm not a fan of the idea either.

Case (switch) statement and modulo

Hi, I'm learning nim and decided to translate some FizzBuzz code from Basic that uses Case(switch) vs If Else If. Here's the Basic syntax: i = 1 to 100 select case case i mod 15 = 0 print "FizzBuzz" case i mod 3 = 0 pr

How to prevent nim generate C code access parent type through `Sup` field?

Thank you. I was trying to see if `{.importc, inheritable, pure.}` can directly map the class hierarchy of gobject to nim, it will look simple and natural. Now I am trying to use concept + template write binding

How to prevent nim generate C code access parent type through `Sup` field?

I am playing with gobject/gtk.

Strenc+Parseopt=AssertionDefect

Thanks, @ElegantBeef! I was able to fix my issue. I used a while instead of a for and that seemed to work.

Simple linked list questions: Correct proc signature for first()

Araq>Shouldn't this be ... Proc first[T](list: SomeLinkedList[T]): SomeLinkedNode[T] = result = list.head Run Probaby... but I really didn't want the now extraneous _next_ from the _source_. My implementation is less than ideal since it always allocates a new no

Simple linked list questions: Correct proc signature for first()

I disagree that linked lists are obsolete; they are fundamental to the history of computer science, are still widely used (e.g. the linux kernel is full of them), and are still useful in some niches (e.g. mutating a container while iterating over it) car/cdr however, were assembly instructions

newSeq() named inconsistently?

Thanks for the quick reply and clarification. I know, changing such fundamental things is not possible because of existing code, and being so used to it probably make it seem a non-issue. OTOH, having inconsistencies in fundamental places confuse new users which are trying to learn Nim and "get

newSeq() named inconsistently?

You're correct, `newSeq` should have been `initSeq` according to our own rules but `newSeq` predates the rules.

newSeq() named inconsistently?

Hi, I just started learning Nim and already like it a lot. Having read about `ref` types and the proc [naming convention](https://nim-lang.org/docs/nep1.html), I wonder if `newSeq()` is named inconistently, maybe because of historic reasons, or if I misunderstand something: import

Simple linked list questions: Correct proc signature for first()

Shouldn't this be instead: proc first[T](list: SomeLinkedList[T]): SomeLinkedNode[T] = result = list.head Run But I don't understand the point of it anyway. Linked lists are a mostly obsolete data structure and not particularly convenient to work with either.

The 'for i in ...' loop inside parsing macro

You don't need to quote anything with a ` in a template