On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 12:01:47 UTC, Yuriy wrote:
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 11:44:35 UTC, ketmar wrote:
preliminary, but working port of Cassowary Solver —
GUI-oriented constraint solver, toolkit-agnostic layout
engine. it's not D-spirited yet, but it works. todo list
includes templated
so it's not a completely trashcan work. ;-)
No way it could be! We don't like monopoly here, right? =)
I just ported the library for my own fun, and added a couple of
D-ish features, like operator overloads, etc. It's not claimed to
be the best one in the world =). Please feel free to
Just finished watching this talk for the second time, as I was
distracted by IRC when watching the livestream. Good talk,
though not as great as last year's from Don, which was the best
one given at DConf 2013. This quote struck me when watching
live, from the 40:35 mark of the video, and
On 27 July 2014 14:35, bearophile via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Iain Buclaw:
BigInt is certainly on the cards for making native 128-bit support
possible, but it still needs to be set apart from global and function
symbols. For that, it needs to finally be given a
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 21:16:52 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
But I thought it was confirmed in this thread by the language
designers that == is equality in D, thus === in other
languages are not needed?
For me two instances of a class located at different memory
locations can never be
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 13:17:42 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Now we have DDMD approaching fast round the corner, with it
comes the prospect of leveraging the many library types in D
for use in the compiler frontend; BigInt, CustomFloat,
HalfFloat;
I would point out that every time I've seen
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 00:23:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 07:04:08PM +, Fool via
Defining opEquals only makes sense if a user wants to replace
equality
by some equivalence relation (different from equality).
Not necessarily. The user type may be
On 28 July 2014 07:08, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 13:17:42 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Now we have DDMD approaching fast round the corner, with it comes the
prospect of leveraging the many library types in D for use in the
On 28 July 2014 07:24, Iain Buclaw ibuc...@gdcproject.org wrote:
On 28 July 2014 07:08, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 13:17:42 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Now we have DDMD approaching fast round the corner, with it comes the
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 06:05:03 UTC, Fool wrote:
So D has to separate opEquals and opCmp since otherwise a user
could not define floating-point 'equality' and 'comparison'
himself in the same way as it is defined by the language.
I'm convinced know. :-)
But opCmp does not affect and !,
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 23:38:44 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 08:43:48PM +, w0rp via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
You absolutely must change your content to fit it into smaller
screens. You cannot send a massive cargo plane to an airfield
which
doesn't
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 00:23:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 07:04:08PM +, Fool via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Similarly, the user is free to define opCmp without
restriction. In
practice, however, it does not seem to make any sense if =
does not
even
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 16:59:15 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I really wish you'd stop with this destructive attitude. Yes,
the web design part is not ready for prime time, but it's
definitely a big step forward already in many aspects, IMO.
Since when is the truth destructive?
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 20:43:49 UTC, w0rp wrote:
You absolutely must change your content to fit it into smaller
screens. You cannot send a massive cargo plane to an airfield
which doesn't have large enough runways. You send smaller
planes to carry your freight to that airport. If you have
On Saturday, 26 July 2014 at 23:42:33 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Maybe this is arrogant or whatever, but my view is that I'm
kinda maxed out as a programmer. Sure, there's a handful of
specific things (like framework method names) I don't know and
some concepts I don't know the names of, but as
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 07:51:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
I think you should represent the information once. Otherwise
people using assistive technologies might run into problems.
(You might also run into SEO problems, getting a reduced ranking
in search engines, if you make lots of
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 06:54:00 UTC, w0rp wrote:
media query syntax in there. One option in a few cases is to
show one element at larger screen sizes, and another element at
smaller screen sizes.
I think you should represent the information once. Otherwise
people using assistive
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 07:29:48 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 20:43:49 UTC, w0rp wrote:
You absolutely must change your content to fit it into smaller
screens. You cannot send a massive cargo plane to an airfield
which doesn't have large enough runways. You send
Walter:
Instead of adding more language features,
Perhaps you can't solve this problem in a sufficiently clean way
without adding language features (and a assume() is not the
solution, see below).
-
Ola Fosheim:
Conflating run time debug checks with programmer
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 08:30:05 UTC, w0rp wrote:
Your comments are being ignored because your comments have been
nothing short of a personal attack on myself. If you wish to
make
a serious contribution to a project, you should learn to use
more
tact, and speak to objective points of
On Saturday, 26 July 2014 at 23:42:33 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On the topic of professional growth, I was asked this week in a
work meeting what I think I can do for mine and I didn't
really have an answer.
Maybe this is arrogant or whatever, but my view is that I'm
kinda maxed out as a
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 08:42:16 UTC, bearophile wrote:
The same kind of optimization is desired for a SInt or other
library-defined types. So the point of this discussion is how
to do this. The problem is that the compiler has some static
information about ranges, but to optimize away
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 05:22:26 +0100, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
If you don't want to accept that equality and comparison are
fundamentally different operations, I can only repeat saying the same
things.
For the majority of use cases they are *not* in fact fundamentally
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:38:33 +0100, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 7/25/2014 4:10 AM, Regan Heath wrote:
Sure, Andrei makes a valid point .. for a minority of cases. The
majority case
will be that opEquals and opCmp==0 will agree. In those minority cases
where
they
Ola Fosheim Grøstad:
IMO muls should yield 2N bits of output for N bits input, then
the compiler should do strength reduction.
Adds should be done on N+1 bits types, using 33 bit output for
32 bits input, then strength reduce it to =32 bit output if
both operands are 31 bits or less?
I
Hi,
dlang.org isn't the only site being re-implemented using vibe.d -
GDC's homepage is now getting a UI update.
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/gdcproject/pull/6
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/gdcproject/pull/9
Staging area for the new look is found here:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 09:46:34 UTC, bearophile wrote:
uint y = 3_000_000_000;
writeln(x, , y);
writeln(x * y);
D promotes int to uint, right? Which is a bad idea. It should
promote to long, right?
bool overflow = false;
immutable r1 = muls(x, y, overflow);
Why
Iain Buclaw:
Staging area for the new look is found here:
http://staging.dgnu.org
I suggest to reduce the section about bugs, to add links in the
text to the other D compilers (and especially to the main D
site), to explain the differences and advantages/disadvantages
between dmd and gdc,
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 20:20:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/27/2014 6:52 AM, bearophile wrote:
A possible piece of the solution is the recently suggested
__trait(valueRange,
exp), but alone that's not enough.
Instead of adding more language features, purpose existing ones:
Am 28.07.2014 09:18, schrieb Gary Willoughby:
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 16:59:15 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I really wish you'd stop with this destructive attitude. Yes, the web
design part is not ready for prime time, but it's definitely a big
step forward already in many aspects, IMO.
Since
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 09:16:44 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
You said you don't like it and you were heard the first time
I'm speaking the truth which often hurts.
Yes and I don't see w0rp running off and sulking about it either.
Your problem is you are not able to take any criticism
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 05:16:51 UTC, Sean Campbell wrote:
Is there anywhere where there is a D version of the NPAPI. I
tried using htod with and without the cpp flag with no sucess
Why would you want to use NPAPI at this point? IE hasn't
supported it in a long time, and Chrome is
Ola Fosheim Grøstad:
D promotes int to uint, right? Which is a bad idea. It should
promote to long, right?
The purpose of safe integral operations like muls() is to detect
overflow bugs at run-time. If they don't detect bugs, they are
not useful.
Bye,
bearophile
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 06:05:03 UTC, Fool wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 00:23:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 07:04:08PM +, Fool via
Defining opEquals only makes sense if a user wants to replace
equality
by some equivalence relation (different
On 28 July 2014 11:39, bearophile via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Iain Buclaw:
Staging area for the new look is found here:
http://staging.dgnu.org
I suggest to reduce the section about bugs, to add links in the text to the
other D compilers (and especially to the
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 09:16:44 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
Your problem is you are not able to take any criticism
whatsoever against this piece of work. The design is awful,
period.
Criticism is worthless if you are not ready to actually do
something about it - providing detailed list
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 09:37:27 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
My point was that for the vast majority of coders, in the vast
majority of cases opCmp()==0 will agree with opEquals(). It is
only in very niche cases i.e. where partial ordering is
actually present and important, that this
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 07:42:39 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
I suppose it depends on what related to programming means. I
presume you, like everyone else, could not write a general
purpose AI, so we all still have that to learn.
Why write it? Just give birth to a child.
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 11:16:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
going and getting stuff done - same principle apply here. If
you have professional web development experience that may help
here - start helping somehow.
You need to define and agree on a process first. If not you will
have to redo the
Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote in message
news:mailman.95.1406528707.16021.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
I was fairly reluctant initially given Phobos' track-record. However
someone did point out that if we don't use Phobos in DDMD, we might as
well apply the brakes now to the project
Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote in message
news:mailman.96.1406529001.16021.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
And I can say (as of writing):
- Me and Daniel did discuss using a library-defined float-point type
in DDMD at DConf 2014
- Daniel is considering the use of BigInt for integer
Jonathan M Davis wrote in message
news:lfhsrrkauworheqme...@forum.dlang.org...
I would point out that every time I've seen compiler devs discuss using
Phobos in dmd, there has been a large reluctance to do so (if not outright
a desire to avoid it entirely) in order to avoid the circular
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 11:32:15 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 07:42:39 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
I suppose it depends on what related to programming means. I
presume you, like everyone else, could not write a general
purpose AI, so we all still have that to learn.
Why
John Colvin wrote in message news:iguetbdxlyilavliz...@forum.dlang.org...
To what extent can a compiler use assertions? Can it work backwards from
an assert to affect previous code?
void foo(int a)
{
enforce(a 1);
assert(a 1);
}
The assert is dead code, because it will never be
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 11:13:28 UTC, bearophile wrote:
The purpose of safe integral operations like muls() is to
detect overflow bugs at run-time. If they don't detect bugs,
they are not useful.
Yes, but if you define the parameters to be long, then it will
work. Right?
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 13:17:42 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
The cent and ucent keywords have been reserved since... well...
certainly before the first D1 (as opposed to D0.xx) release
[2]. But that's all they have ever seemed to be. Just
reserved keywords that give odd errors when you try to
The purpose of safe integral operations like muls() is to
detect overflow bugs at run-time. If they don't detect bugs,
they are not useful.
I think it detects the overflow correctly even if you use the
(uint, int) argument pair, because the usual conversions are
used, and I think the mulu is
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 12:08:39 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
John Colvin wrote in message
news:iguetbdxlyilavliz...@forum.dlang.org...
To what extent can a compiler use assertions? Can it work
backwards from an assert to affect previous code?
void foo(int a)
{
enforce(a 1);
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 12:52:07 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 12:08:39 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
John Colvin wrote in message
news:iguetbdxlyilavliz...@forum.dlang.org...
To what extent can a compiler use assertions? Can it work
backwards from an assert to affect
John Colvin wrote in message news:zzmgkwlzggrrtdtjb...@forum.dlang.org...
Ok. What about this:
int c;
void foo(int a)
{
if(a 0) c++;
assert(a 0);
}
I presume that cannot be optimised away entirely to:
...
void foo(int a)
{
assert(a 0);
}
of course you can't optimise away
On 26 July 2014 00:31, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 7/25/2014 4:28 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
That page doesn't say anything about TypeInfo, though.
It says to follow the form.
But even then,
why doesn't the compiler reject opCmp
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 12:53:20 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
int c;
void foo(int a)
{
if(a 0) c++;
assert(a 0);
}
I presume that cannot be optimised away entirely to:
void foo(int a) {}
?
sorry, I mean
void foo(int a)
{
assert(a 0);
}
of course you can't optimise away the
Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote in message
news:vqlvigvgcplkuohud...@forum.dlang.org...
Please guys, you should not change code-gen based on asserts. They are not
proofs, they are candidates for formal verification of correctness. They
are in essence embedded break-point checks. If you allow
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 07:42:39 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
I suppose it depends on what related to programming means. I
presume you, like everyone else, could not write a general
purpose AI, so we all still have that to learn.
Yeah, I'm defining it as basically something non-trivial that
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 11:32:15 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Why write it? Just give birth to a child.
Giving birth would indeed be a new experience for me!
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 09:22:29 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
How's your mathematics and numerical analysis? There are always
new horizons.
I'm very good at integral and differential calculus, I know the
scientific names of beings animalcules, in short in matters
vegetable, animal, and
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 13:31:50 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
The compiler is allowed to not check assertions in release
mode. This is because a program that would fail an assertion
is a broken program, and by specifying -release you are telling
the compiler to assume all assertions pass. I
Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote in message
news:scibhjsiolgykujqx...@forum.dlang.org...
In that case I will write my own assert() that doesn't have this
behaviour. Nobody who cares about program verification and correctness
will touch this.
Yes.
assert() is no guarantee for correctness, it is
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 11:35:31 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
via Digitalmars-d wrote:
There are many ways to grow, and the most important one need
not necessarily be programming.
everyone tells me i need to get married :
Personally, I tend to find that growth as a programmer tends to
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 13:50:29 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Yes, writing code wrong can result in the wrong thing
happening. A non-release build will always retain the asserts.
No, writing wrong code is one thing.
Having a single typo in a constraint-test cause memory unsafety
undetected
On 7/26/14, 4:26 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 04:23:23PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2bt8a5/what_programming_book_should_i_read_next/
Ali's book is the latest, so I posted that one!
What about
Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote in message
news:ejbwjvylulclchheh...@forum.dlang.org...
No, writing wrong code is one thing.
Having a single typo in a constraint-test cause memory unsafety undetected
is a disaster. And many such typos _will_ go undetected.
Sure, because having single typos in
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 15:07:07 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Let's say you want to add two numbers, but instead of writing
'a + b' you write 'a - b' The program fails even though
you totally meant to write the correct code.
You are trolling me. :-[
Verification is not specification. D
Daniel Murphy:
One murky area is that assert(0) is currently used to mean both
'unreachable' and 'unimplemented'. It's unclear what the
compiler is allowed to do with an assert(0) in release mode.
I'd still like to have a halt() in D, and have assert(0) with the
same semantics of the other
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 15:20:44 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
If asserts were used as optimization constraints
all available code is fair game as optimisation constraints. What
you are asking for is a special case for `assert` such that the
optimiser is blind to it.
bool foo(int a)
{
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 15:52:23 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 15:20:44 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
If asserts were used as optimization constraints
all available code is fair game as optimisation constraints.
What you are asking for is a special case for `assert`
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:27:02 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Hi,
dlang.org isn't the only site being re-implemented using vibe.d
- GDC's homepage is now getting a UI update.
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/gdcproject/pull/6
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/gdcproject/pull/9
Staging
bearophile wrote in message news:tijfjtihtubozpjoj...@forum.dlang.org...
I'd still like to have a halt() in D, and have assert(0) with the same
semantics of the other asserts. In many cases when you have a different
feature it's good to also give it a different name.
Yes, me too. The
Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote in message
news:cgljkngsjwkspfixd...@forum.dlang.org...
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 15:07:07 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Let's say you want to add two numbers, but instead of writing 'a + b'
you write 'a - b' The program fails even though you totally meant
to
On 7/28/14, 12:29 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
I am contributing but you are completely ignoring me and attacking what
i'm saying. I've been a professional web application developer for years
and have a lot of experience with design and UX. Everybody here is
completely ignoring that fact! You
On 7/28/14, 3:27 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Hi,
dlang.org isn't the only site being re-implemented using vibe.d - GDC's
homepage is now getting a UI update.
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/gdcproject/pull/6
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/gdcproject/pull/9
Staging area for the new look
Daniel Murphy:
Sure, we could add a new construct (ie 'assume') to the
language, and use that to pass information. But are they
really different?
Conflating the two concepts with a single name is a mistake that
will cause troubles. Different features need different names or
different
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 16:58:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/28/14, 12:29 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
I am contributing but you are completely ignoring me and
attacking what
i'm saying. I've been a professional web application developer
for years
and have a lot of experience with
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 11:35:21 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 11:16:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
going and getting stuff done - same principle apply here. If
you have professional web development experience that may help
here - start helping somehow.
You need to
bearophile wrote in message news:sfgfebbskhatxqlzt...@forum.dlang.org...
Conflating the two concepts with a single name is a mistake that will
cause troubles. Different features need different names or different
syntax.
Did you read the rest of my post? Assert already fits this feature, we
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:38:12 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
completely the wrong way to design anything., current design
look ridiculous, poor amateurish design, i wish you would
stop right now - all of those comments look pretty destructive
to me.
No, that's the truth! You can sugar coat
Am 28.07.2014 18:04, schrieb w0rp:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:27:02 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Hi,
dlang.org isn't the only site being re-implemented using vibe.d -
GDC's homepage is now getting a UI update.
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/gdcproject/pull/6
Github updated their Issues system (which includes Pull
Requests). You can read about it here:
https://github.com/blog/1866-the-new-github-issues
Bugzilla is here to stay but the newly added Labels feature could
probably help organize Pull Requests. The usual Enhancement,
Bug, etc. are nice
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 17:31:56 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
[...]
A lot of the time it seems like there is confusion over whose
court the ball is in.
I always forget idioms probably aren't a good idea in an
international community like this one.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:58:59AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 7/28/14, 12:29 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
I am contributing but you are completely ignoring me and attacking
what i'm saying. I've been a professional web application developer
for years and have a lot
Brad Anderson wrote in message
news:vtizuccrwzyidddfz...@forum.dlang.org...
Github updated their Issues system (which includes Pull Requests). You can
read about it here:
https://github.com/blog/1866-the-new-github-issues
Oh FINALLY!!!
I've wanted to use assignment and labels for a long
On 7/28/14, 4:54 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Jonathan M Davis wrote in message
news:lfhsrrkauworheqme...@forum.dlang.org...
I would point out that every time I've seen compiler devs discuss
using Phobos in dmd, there has been a large reluctance to do so (if
not outright a desire to avoid it
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 05:31:55PM +, Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Github updated their Issues system (which includes Pull Requests). You
can read about it here:
https://github.com/blog/1866-the-new-github-issues
Bugzilla is here to stay but the newly added Labels feature
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 17:31:49 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 28.07.2014 18:04, schrieb w0rp:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:27:02 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Hi,
dlang.org isn't the only site being re-implemented using
vibe.d -
GDC's homepage is now getting a UI update.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:03:22AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 7/28/14, 4:54 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Jonathan M Davis wrote in message
news:lfhsrrkauworheqme...@forum.dlang.org...
I would point out that every time I've seen compiler devs discuss
using Phobos in
On 7/28/14, 10:25 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:38:12 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
completely the wrong way to design anything., current design look
ridiculous, poor amateurish design, i wish you would stop right
now - all of those comments look pretty destructive to me.
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 18:52:55 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
Now:
int[] i = new int[5];
For now let's call 'i' a dynamic array and the thing it
refers to
a foobar.
'i' is a dynamic array and contains a reference to a block of
memory.
Frankly I don't see how making the distinction at
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote in message
news:lr6395$19r7$1...@digitalmars.com...
There'd also be the argument that using phobos inside ddmd would make the
latter a better test for itself and phobos. -- Andrei
This is true, but my main concern is the quality of the compiler source.
My main
On 7/28/14, 11:12 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:03:22AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 7/28/14, 4:54 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Jonathan M Davis wrote in message
news:lfhsrrkauworheqme...@forum.dlang.org...
I would point out that
Daniel Murphy wrote in message news:lr6249$18pf$1...@digitalmars.com...
Oh FINALLY!!!
I've just labelled all the DDMD pull requests.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 04:24:27AM +1000, Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote in message
news:lr6395$19r7$1...@digitalmars.com...
There'd also be the argument that using phobos inside ddmd would make
the latter a better test for itself and phobos. -- Andrei
Am 28.07.2014 19:25, schrieb Gary Willoughby:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:38:12 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
completely the wrong way to design anything., current design look
ridiculous, poor amateurish design, i wish you would stop right
now - all of those comments look pretty destructive to me.
On 07/23/2014 06:45 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
This morning, I discovered this major WAT in D:
struct S {
int x;
int y;
int opCmp(S s) {
return x - s.x; // compare only x
}
}
...
Not even transitive!
void main() {
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote in message
news:mailman.124.1406572776.16021.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
I see this as a good thing, actually. Not that I think it's good to
increase compile time and binary bloat, but that when this happens, we
will have very strong incentives to do
On 28 Jul 2014 17:05, w0rp via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:27:02 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Hi,
dlang.org isn't the only site being re-implemented using vibe.d - GDC's
homepage is now getting a UI update.
On 07/25/2014 11:34 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/25/2014 2:53 AM, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
On Friday, 25 July 2014 at 09:39:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
That can be special cased, too.
Seriously? Where does it end?
catch(MyTemplatedException!true) {
}
That one can't be special cased in the
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 18:13:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/28/14, 10:25 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:38:12 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
completely the wrong way to design anything., current
design look
ridiculous, poor amateurish design, i wish you would
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote in message
news:lr64ah$1akc$1...@digitalmars.com...
Agreed. Conversely we'd be hamstringing ourselves by essentially making D
a poorer choice for implementing dmd than any other languages.
This doesn't make any sense. Somehow D is a worse choice than C++ if we
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 15:52:23 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
If asserts were used as optimization constraints
all available code is fair game as optimisation constraints.
What you are asking for is a special case for `assert` such
that the optimiser is blind to it.
Yes, because they are not
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 19:12:49 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
I'd suggest to just special case the general thing, or not add
any special cases at all.
catch(Type)
^~
I.e. use lookahead to determine whether something that looks
like a type follows a '(' token and is itself followed by a
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
