Re: how to make private class member private
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 23:54:22 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 21:33:01 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 21:22:44 UTC, arturg wrote: maybe extend that to a list of types? this is basically what C++ friend does and D was trying to avoid the complexity of Really, the complexity of 'friend' comes from people abusing it. In D, I would prefer no breaking change here. Leave private as it is. Just a simple attribute that only applies within a class, and only to private members within that class. @strictly private string firstName_; Nothing outside of the class, not even the module, can access this now. It's all encapsulated. It breaks nothing (AFAIK). It's very clear what the intention is here. It's an easy attribute to remember. It restores the principle of class enscapsulation within a module, for when it's really needed. Now D programmers would have the best of both worlds. Why do you insist that you know how everything works and you are the harbinger of truth. The fact is, you don't know squat about what you are talking about and you just want to conform D to your naive ignorant understanding of programming so you don't get confused rather than learning and accepting D for what it does, which is do everything better than C/C++. You keep trying to make it in to C/C++, the the hell don't you just go use C/C++ then? No one is going to listen to you. Your ignorance is pointed out by many that have used D far longer than you have and you think you can come in and point out all the things wrong without having any experience with it. The fact is, the creator of the class is also the creator of the module.. and preventing him from having full access to the class is ignorant. He doesn't need to encapsulate himself. Encapsulation is ONLY meant to reduce dependencies. If the programmer, probably someone like you, can't trust himself to understand his own code then he shouldn't be coding. If you don't like it, just write one class per module and don't have any free functions... it solves your problem and it doesn't use your shitty "solution". No one is forcing you to access your class outside the class but inside the module. The fact is you are ignorant of what you speak about and that is 99% of the problem. If you don't like how D does it, go use another language that does it the way you "think"(if you could call it that) is correct. Many of the thing D does is learned from the mistakes of C/C++... and for you to pretend that your insignificant self who has never wrote a compiler much less read the specs has a clue about the ramifications of the changes is moronic. Your only reason for not liking it is because you "don't like it"... how moronic. "Mmm.. I don't think I like it. I feel you should be able to make a member of a class, private, regardless of where the class is located. This seems to break the concept of class encapsulation. No. I don't like it at all. " Yet you have no clue... You "learned"(brainwashed" that encapsulation means private members of classes cannot be accessed from C++ and because D provides a more complex rule that you can't seem to grasp(but which is very simple and no other human that has used D has had issues with) you say that D is wrong rather than that you or C++ is wrong. The fact is, you are a moron. It's not because of this one issue but because of your mentality of which this is just an example. I'm sure you have the same thing with many issues in your life and you go strutting around like you own the place telling everyone what is wrong with how things are done when you yourself have no clue. Want me to prove it to you? You say: "I feel you should be able to make a member of a class, private, regardless of where the class is located. This seems to break the concept of class encapsulation. " Yet, really, what you mean is that it breaks the concept of class that you learned in programming 101 that had to do with C++. You don't have a clue about logic and qualification. Maybe you are confused and you thought D was C++? You know, if you go to Rome... ah never mind, you won't get it...
Re: how to make private class member private
On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 at 01:41:33 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 21:38:59 UTC, Amorphorious wrote: You are a moron...etc..etc..etc..etc. See. This is what happens when you have access to a keyboard while high on ice. Yep. So maybe you should stop doing the ice?!?! Then maybe you could actually reply with an intelligent answer? How old are you, BTW? 15? You know that at that age ice is pretty bad for you. It will drop your IQ 20 points in a year, so since you obviously have an IQ of 60 then means you've been doing ice for about 1 year now... better stop while you have any brain cell's left.
Re: how to make private class member private
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 06:10:26 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 05:35:30 UTC, Amorphorious wrote: There is another problem: 3rd: You are a brainwashed monkey who can't think for himself. Gee..takes some real brains to come up with that one. See, You learned a little about C++/C#/Java and think the world must conform to what they say is correct and deny everything that contradicts it rather than first seeing if you are on the wrong side of the contradiction. The fact is, there is no reason a module should be restricted to see it's own classes private members. Yeah that sounds fine. As long as you're willing to give up the concept of class encapsulation. And, as long as you are willing to have programmers use the same syntax in D, as used in the 3 most widely used lanaguages on the planet, but get very different semantics. It's a real gotcha for those programmers. It's sorta like a family who runs around pretending that they can't see each others private parts. Sure, it sounds like a good thing... until someone accidentally drops the towel and the offended calls the cop on their brother and has him arrested for breaking the law. I'm not interested in your fanatasies. Keep them to yourself. You should learn that your view of the world is very minute and stop trying to fit the world in to your box. It's called growing up. If you can't make a distinction between C++ encapsulation and D encapsulation you have far bigger problems than you think. I think the view of the 3 most widely used langauges on the planet, is not something to dismiss so easily. D has what, 1000 programmers, maybe.. so I wonder whose world is really minute. In any case, I'm not attacking D. I use it. I am just questioning whether the different semantics for private, in D, is really worth it. You are a moron. That is the simple issue. That is why you get confused easily and why you have trouble. I am stating this not as a ad hominem but as the truth. You lack the reasoning ability to realize that the world is vastly different than what goes on in your pea sized brain(that is a personal attack, unless one is using pea as a metaphor for your lack of experience in the real world to teach you that things don't always follow linear lines). 1. EVEN IF THE TOP 1 MILLION PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES ALL USED THE EXACT SAME SYNTAX, SAME COMPILER, SAME FORUMS, SAME WHATEVER, it means NOTHING! Truth isn't dictated by numbers. You surely are a believer in Christianity or Islam? This type of "logic" is what they typically use. a. You'd see that all those 1M PL's are identical, so, in fact, there is just 1. In fact, one could say inflate all programming languages by saying there are N copies. e.g., D actually has 1 Billion versions all identical. Don't believe me, just make 1 Billion copies on your 4TB HD(ok, it will take about 10PB, so what). If you want, write a self-modifying compiler that modifies the source a bit to change random non-breaking changes. That way you actually have 1 Billion different copies... just so you can be pedantic. b. God didn't write "Classes must be self-encapsulated" in the 10 commandments... hence it is false to assume they must. After all, if God wanted it, it would be so. 2. Being a lemming makes this very hard for you to grasp... but ask yourself why Haskell is different, after all, it didn't conform to C/C++... so it must be wrong too. 3. Why aren't people running around living in caves? After all, the first humans started doing that! In fact, why don't all humans live in the sea? After all, the real first humans did that. Your logic is that the first dictates what the last should be... and the only reason is because your pathetic brain can't grasp the fact that there is no law that requires that. It's no different than saying that the son of a blacksmith must be a blacksmith, but again, your inability to abstract will find this very hard to understand. Let me put it different, Is a son of a bitch a bitch? Oh, does that make more sense? No? Oh well, I tried... The fact is, you are clueless on some level if you really think you are right. The fact that you would waste your time and everyone around you arguing some useless point that means nothing is pointless... which goes to show that you are not that intelligent. The goal, here, is to try to fix whatever bug is in your brain that prevents you from becoming more intelligent. Only time will tell if it works... I'm sorry for wasting your time. I'm sure you have better things to do like go argue why Hans Solo should have wore a blue vest instead of a black one because it's the colors of his heraldry and Lucas was wrong for putting him in black. Or maybe today it you were going to argue that Harry Potters wand should be made out of Ceder because all wizards use Ceder. Or maybe it is something else?
Re: how to make private class member private
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 05:11:48 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 02:24:38 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 02:06:57 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: Mmm.. I don't think I like it. I feel you should be able to make a member of a class, private, regardless of where the class is located. This seems to break the concept of class encapsulation. No. I don't like it at all. If you have access to the module source, you have access to the source of types inside it. Making the module the lowest level of encapsulation makes sense from that perspective. There are two problems I see: 1st - D has broken the concept of class encapsulation, simply for convenience at the module level. Not good in my opinion. 2nd - C++/C#/Java programmers will come to D, use the same syntax, but get very different semantics. Not good in my opinion. (i.e. I only realised private was not private, by accident). D has made many good design decisions. I do not see this as one of them. There is another problem: 3rd: You are a brainwashed monkey who can't think for himself. See, You learned a little about C++/C#/Java and think the world must conform to what they say is correct and deny everything that contradicts it rather than first seeing if you are on the wrong side of the contradiction. The fact is, there is no reason a module should be restricted to see it's own classes private members. It's sorta like a family who runs around pretending that they can't see each others private parts. Sure, it sounds like a good thing... until someone accidentally drops the towel and the offended calls the cop on their brother and has him arrested for breaking the law. You should learn that your view of the world is very minute and stop trying to fit the world in to your box. It's called growing up. If you can't make a distinction between C++ encapsulation and D encapsulation you have far bigger problems than you think.
Re: Interfacing with webcam
On Tuesday, 30 September 2014 at 03:41:20 UTC, Kyle wrote: Hi, Has anyone successfully used D to capture images from a webcam? Something like what you can do with OpenCV or pygame's camera API? Any idea how I can do this without having to know a lot of complex stuff? Thanks! Looking for something similar. I simply need to show the video of a camera and be able to do to basics like rotation, crop, etc.
Re: Any free stock market data API?
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 23:04:44 UTC, Amorphorious wrote: Most are in other languages: https://www.alphavantage.co/ https://iextrading.com/ are two free ones. I'm just hoping for a more D'ish solution. http://www.quantmod.com/ I'm wondering if I can use something like alphavantage and this package and integrate it between D and R. Have R/qauntmod do all the statistical work to avoid rewriting it all but easily coordinate all this from D. Or maybe there is a better way?
Any free stock market data API?
Most are in other languages: https://www.alphavantage.co/ https://iextrading.com/ are two free ones. I'm just hoping for a more D'ish solution.
Re: arsd simpledisplay opengl 3d
Thanks. It's working. Seems like either it was the drawing code or the setting one of the setup conditions.
arsd simpledisplay opengl 3d
Hi Adam, I'm interested in using your simpledisplay for 3D in
openGL. I have worked with 2D fine but 3D is problemattic. I
cannot get any depth even though i have set up 3D mode by
modifying gamehelpers:
SimpleWindow create2dWindow(int width = 512, int height = 512,
int viewportWidth=512, int viewportHeight=512, string title="") {
auto window = new SimpleWindow(width, height, title,
OpenGlOptions.yes);
window.setAsCurrentOpenGlContext();
glEnable(eGL.BLEND);
glBlendFunc(eGL.SRC_ALPHA, eGL.ONE_MINUS_SRC_ALPHA);
glShadeModel(GL_SMOOTH);
glClearColor(0,0,0,0);
glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT); // Clear
color and depth buffers
glDepthFunc(GL_LESS);
glDepthMask(GL_TRUE);
glHint(GL_PERSPECTIVE_CORRECTION_HINT, GL_NICEST);
glEnable(GL_DEPTH_TEST);
glMatrixMode(eGL.PROJECTION);
glLoadIdentity();
//glOrtho(0, viewportWidth, viewportHeight, 0, 0, 1); // Specify
opengl window size, which differs from OS window size
//glMatrixMode(eGL.MODELVIEW);
//glLoadIdentity();
glMatrixMode( GL_PROJECTION );
glLoadIdentity();
gluPerspective(145, 1.333, 0.01, 100);
// glDisable(eGL.DEPTH_TEST);
glEnable(eGL.TEXTURE_2D);
return window;
}
I've played around with various settings but either I get nothing
or 2D. Any idea what I might be missing?
Re: Compile to non-OS binary
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 03:24:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 03:15:58 UTC, Amorphorious wrote: In fact, it would be very helpful to have switches that disable the various "features" of D that I will not use rather than having to do any self compilation. The way I did it was create a custom runtime only including the features I wanted, then use `-defaultlib=` to disable linking in the library.. There's also the `-betterC` switch that will skip things like this too. This is my old code, but emphasis on old, I haven't updated it for over a year and runtime hacks like this tend to need tweaks to keep working http://arsdnet.net/dcode/minimal.zip I believe gdc also has several flags to disable individual features. Thanks. We can remove phobos easily but the runtime must be custom, which requires recompiling with the appropriate compilers. How much hacking have you had to do? is it mainly just removing bits of code or did you have to do extensive work? and if so, what areas, if you recall? Did you having any major problems messing around with this stuff or is it pretty straight forward?
betterC current consequences
The docs states Consequences As no Druntime is available, many D features won't work. For example: Garbage Collection Thread-local storage TypeInfo and ModuleInfo Classes Built-in threading (e.g. core.thread) Dynamic arrays (but not slices) and associative arrays Exceptions switch with strings final switch synchronized and core.sync Static module constructors or deconstructors Struct deconstructors unittest (testing can be as usual with the -betterC flag) The predefined version D_BetterC can be used for conditional compilation. Are each of these still valid statements? Also, is the GC os independent? I see there is an os module for the gc, but does it require the os for any particular reason?
Re: Compile to non-OS binary
Premature send(tabs?!?! ;/)
void main()
{
version(BIOS)
{
import iBIOS;
BIOSOut("Hello World");
} else
{
writeln("Hello World");
}
}
When compiled appropriately will create a bootable executable
that displays the string. Else will create an OS specific
executable that prints the string.
(for demo purposes only)
This should be seamless as I will be switching functionality
regularly.
Compile to non-OS binary
I would like to compile D for the different supported
architectures only without and OS, C lib, D lib, or GC code. For
example, as a boot loader or even bios binary.
In fact, it would be very helpful to have switches that disable
the various "features" of D that I will not use rather than
having to do any self compilation.
Ultimately LDC and/or GDC will be required for optimized binaries
with the same limitations. For testing purposes I would also like
the ability to compile to the OS PE structure.
For example
import BIOS;
void main()
{
BIOSOut("Hello World");
}
will output
