Hello,
I am happy to announce that my 32bit version of sdc compiles the
whole testsuite including mixins.
the only there are only 6 tests still failing
2 of them are dependent on size_t.siezof beeing 8.
The otherer 4 have to do with execptoion handling.
please check out the 32-branches
on
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:36:37 +
Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
wow.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 13:36:39 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Hello,
the only there are only 6 tests still failing
2 of them are dependent on size_t.siezof beeing 8.
Correction I fixed the tests for 32bit
only 4 tests are failing
all of them due to Execptions
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 14:22:43 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:36:37 +
Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
wow.
Well thanks.
please give me feedback if you are using it.
In the next days i'm going to
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:43:56 +
Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
ah. sure i'll try to write you about every bug i found. %-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Sorry I think i messed up with my github branches.
until i get it straightend out you can get my local working
source verbatim from
http://www42.zippyshare.com/v/4371099/file.html
I modified the sdc to produce 32bit code if the -m32 argument is
passed to it. 64bit is still the default.
I also
On 7/28/14, 10:11 PM, Dicebot wrote:
(sorry for being a bit late, was distracted)
std.logger proposal by Robert Schadek enters voting period which will
last two weeks starting from now.
Discussion thread :
http://forum.dlang.org/post/zhvmkbahrqtgkptdl...@forum.dlang.org
This voting will be
On 28 July 2014 21:34, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 7/28/14, 11:24 AM, Daniel Murphy 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
Dicebot wrote in message news:dltkkijmuwhjcchej...@forum.dlang.org...
As far as I can see one needs admin access to the repo to define new
labels. Merge access is not enough - at least I don't seem to be able
define new label for Phobos.
No, you just need commit access. On the pull
On 7/28/14, 11:23 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Indeed, before this topic gets derailed any further. Do you have any
thoughts on the initial post?
I don't understand the question. -- Andrei
On 29 July 2014 03:53, Justin C Calvarese via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 19:09:51 UTC, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
...
I left the downloads page as 'this is as good as it's going to get'.
If you decide to trim down the tables, you
Dicebot wrote in message news:krxuctciwangfhiph...@forum.dlang.org...
One useful label I can imagine for both DMD and Phobos repos is
need-decision that will mark pull requests blocked until someone with
authority decides if actual semantics of a change are to be accepted or
rejected. That
Ola Fosheim Gr wrote in message
news:kpfxpgdpakuqrdzia...@forum.dlang.org...
I find it worrying that you take so lightly on basic correctness. Asserts
are entirely probabilistic in nature. What you are arguing for is a regime
where a single bad assert can result in the user's disk getting
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 06:09:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
No in current form. Yes assuming the fixes below are
implemented.
...
No. I also think any new module should sit in std.experimental
for one release cycle.
Clarification, just to be sure you got it right - right now we
Dne 29.7.2014 7:11, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
(sorry for being a bit late, was distracted)
std.logger proposal by Robert Schadek enters voting period which will
last two weeks starting from now.
Discussion thread :
http://forum.dlang.org/post/zhvmkbahrqtgkptdl...@forum.dlang.org
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 06:32:15 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
I'm thinking along the lines of:
- Needs review
- Needs work
Makes sense if we agree to add those only if nothing happens with
pull for relatively long time - otherwise it means lot of useless
routine of switching back and forth
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 06:35:06 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
The idea is you test your code with assertions enabled, and
then only use '-release' when you are sure your program
functions correctly.
If you are doing critical work or do not trust program input,
either do not disable
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 17:23:37 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
It is frustrating because i want this to be done well as it
could really help D take off.
Doing it on LAMP won't help D to take off. In a sense, you don't
even criticize this work, as a professional web designer, you can
provide
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 06:24:26 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Dicebot wrote in message
news:dltkkijmuwhjcchej...@forum.dlang.org...
As far as I can see one needs admin access to the repo to
define new labels. Merge access is not enough - at least I
don't seem to be able define new label
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 19:13:12 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
Also who starts a project without designing it first? I mean
honestly, why start such a major piece of work without even a
vague spec? Has w0rp even asked users here what the site needs
to encompass? Has the question been asked
Dicebot wrote in message news:efrstwsylpujuyycw...@forum.dlang.org...
Makes sense if we agree to add those only if nothing happens with pull for
relatively long time - otherwise it means lot of useless routine of
switching back and forth between needs review and needs work.
Yeah, I just
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote in message
news:mailman.130.1406587551.16021.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
It depends on how we do the transition. If we replace dmd with ddmd
first, then we'll run into problems with Phobos adoption, because we may
discover that using Phobos causes (d)dmd
On 29 July 2014 07:28, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On 7/28/14, 11:23 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Indeed, before this topic gets derailed any further. Do you have any
thoughts on the initial post?
I don't understand the question. --
On 7/29/2014 12:00 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 06:35:06 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
The idea is you test your code with assertions enabled, and then only use
'-release' when you are sure your program functions correctly.
If you are doing critical work or do not trust program
Walter Bright:
I believe we are talking past each other with no understanding.
The roadmap for the next three versions of Scala. Despite Scala
is used much more than D, they are willing to break library code
(shuffle around collections, turn mutable ones into immutable
ones), and change
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 05:51:46 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
On Saturday, 26 July 2014 at 23:06:02 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
Thereafter can come sub-slice examples and so on.
Does this make sense?
Yes, the reference documentation is pretty terrible with naming
of various array concepts.
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 05:11:33 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
1) Yes / No for inclusion into std.experimental
Yes. It's ready for an official stamp.
2) Yes / No for inclusion into Phobos in its current state
No. Full advantage should be taken of the std.experimental time.
3) If you have
Am 29.07.2014 00:54, schrieb w0rp:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 22:38:10 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I'll look at playing with the style of the documentation pages some more
another evening. I've had a few ideas for improvements, and I obviously
still need to include syntax highlighting. Is this the
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 07:46:34 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 05:51:46 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
On Saturday, 26 July 2014 at 23:06:02 UTC, Andrew Godfrey
wrote:
Thereafter can come sub-slice examples and so on.
Does this make sense?
Yes, the reference
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 07:46:34 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 05:51:46 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
On Saturday, 26 July 2014 at 23:06:02 UTC, Andrew Godfrey
wrote:
Thereafter can come sub-slice examples and so on.
Does this make sense?
Yes, the reference
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 08:27:40 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 29.07.2014 00:54, schrieb w0rp:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 22:38:10 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I'll look at playing with the style of the documentation
pages some more
another evening. I've had a few ideas for improvements, and
I
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 19:13:12 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
Do you think users give a hoot how facebook works?
I've seen an expressed concern here (probably by Nick) about
facebook using PHP, the latter being a not so good language. In a
reddit announcement about dlang forum there was 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`
You don't say anything below that does not work when I replace dynamic
arrays with slices. Let's see... (I mark every such
replaced-by-me-slice with double stars.)
On 07/28/2014 06:35 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 22:29:04 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 07/27/2014 01:49
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 02:54:37 -0700
Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
You don't say anything below that does not work when I replace
dynamic arrays with slices. Let's see... (I mark every such
replaced-by-me-slice with double stars.)
Because they're the same
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 07:31:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
You can choose to disable assertions with a switch, or not.
Having a choice up to you doesn't make it useless.
Yes I know what are options to make it work. I don't know how to
make it work in a good style. This is not just D
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 07:18:37 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Reason why I have named it needs-decision (can't have
whitespaces in labels afaik) is that it is not necessarily an
enhancement stuff - sometimes bug fixes
can be also very controversial.
'Walter-blocked' is the true meaning.
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 09:40:27 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
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
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 10:13:45 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
This is one of problems. When writing library function you
don't exactly know if input is going to be user input. Use
enforces - and it won't be possible to optimize away redundant
checks. Use assertions and issue may slip uncaught.
I
1) Yes / No for inclusion into std.experimental
Yes
2) Yes / No for inclusion into Phobos in its current state
No
3) If you have answered No for (2) : list of mandatory
changes that are needed to make you vote Yes
I can't say Yes until I've actually used it.
4) Any additional
maybe we should have made a vote for logc vs. log(bool) first
I think we gone full circle ulong.max times by now ;-)
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 12:18:31 UTC, Robert burner Schadek
wrote:
maybe we should have made a vote for logc vs. log(bool) first
I think we gone full circle ulong.max times by now ;-)
This shouldn't affect inclusion to std.experimental and can be
done at any moment
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 05:11:33 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
1) Yes / No for inclusion into std.experimental
Yes, absolutely.
2) Yes / No for inclusion into Phobos in its current state
Not yet.
3) If you have answered No for (2) : list of mandatory
changes that
are needed to make you vote
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 05:11:31 +, Dicebot wrote:
1) Yes / No for inclusion into std.experimental
Yes
2) Yes / No for inclusion into Phobos in its current state
No
see notes in (3)
3) If you have answered No for (2) : list of mandatory changes that
are needed to make you vote Yes
We
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 11:13:32 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I think that would require more navigation tabs than there is
space for on the screen. ;)
Always wondered, why navigation toolbars can't wrap, especially
when visual design allows for it. Aren't they just a sequence
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 08:51:43 UTC, w0rp wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 08:27:40 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 29.07.2014 00:54, schrieb w0rp:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 22:38:10 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I'll look at playing with the style of the documentation
pages some more
another
Awesome work so far. Getting this right is I huge pain, and I
applaud
you going through this.
I should have said this as well. Regardless, I second this
statement as this is probably the thing I'm looking forward to
the most when it comes to additions to the standard library.
We should consider a label for revivable PRs:
PRs which the original submitter is no longer responding but the
pull can be salvaged if somebody rebases and addresses the
feedback comments.
I tried using the search is:unmerged is:pr is:closed to try and
find candidates but unfortunately it
safety0ff wrote in message news:hvdsdwbvibtuojxvn...@forum.dlang.org...
We should consider a label for revivable PRs:
PRs which the original submitter is no longer responding but the
pull can be salvaged if somebody rebases and addresses the
feedback comments.
Tagged as 'needs work' + open
Yes for experimental.
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 14:12:34 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Tagged as 'needs work' + open + sort by recently updated should
do it.
Ok, this is workable as long as we remove needs work labels
prior to merging pulls.
PRs which are candidates for rebooting might be closed due to
safety0ff wrote in message news:qwdmzdjdwgqgqfrfc...@forum.dlang.org...
Ok, this is workable as long as we remove needs work labels prior to
merging pulls.
PRs which are candidates for rebooting might be closed due to inactivity.
This isn't too important right now, but I thought I'd toss the
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 08:41:48 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 07:46:34 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
I gave this a try, and overall it looks like an improvement,
but I think we need another name than slice. The reason is
that the slice operator is a distinct thing and
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 16:30:27 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Yeah. It would be easy enough to automatically add a 'merged'
or 'unmerged' tag to all closed pulls in necessary. I can't
see a way to search for pulls _without_ a certain label
unfortunately.
If you look at the link I
On 7/28/14, 11:46 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 06:09:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
No in current form. Yes assuming the fixes below are implemented.
...
No. I also think any new module should sit in std.experimental for one
release cycle.
Clarification, just to be
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 10:42:24 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
[...]
I went ahead and have added few labels for Phobos
(https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/labels):
blocked (awaits decision) == Andrei-blocked but named a bit
more generic just in case
blocked by dependency == depends
On 7/29/14, 5:23 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 12:18:31 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
maybe we should have made a vote for logc vs. log(bool) first
I think we gone full circle ulong.max times by now ;-)
This shouldn't affect inclusion to std.experimental and can be done
On 7/29/14, 5:18 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
maybe we should have made a vote for logc vs. log(bool) first
I think we gone full circle ulong.max times by now ;-)
My understanding is the entire prefix-letter approach was based on an
oversight.
Andrei
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:15:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
NO.
We put something in std.experimental when we can't imagine what
other work is to be done on the module. (Inevitably a little
more work is prompted by usage, which is the point of it all.)
We don't put in
On 7/29/14, 10:16 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/29/14, 5:18 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
maybe we should have made a vote for logc vs. log(bool) first
I think we gone full circle ulong.max times by now ;-)
My understanding is the entire prefix-letter approach was based on an
Forking from
http://forum.dlang.org/post/qsqfcayisriatreqt...@forum.dlang.org
Most relevant quote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:15:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
We put something in std.experimental when we can't imagine what
other work is to be done on the module. (Inevitably a little
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 05:11:33 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
(sorry for being a bit late, was distracted)
std.logger proposal by Robert Schadek enters voting period
which will last two weeks starting from now.
Discussion thread :
http://forum.dlang.org/post/zhvmkbahrqtgkptdl...@forum.dlang.org
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 16:59:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
The point of keeping a module in std.experimental is watching
for only minor tweaks.
I agree. For this reason, I also vote for no (1 as well as 2),
as the current conditional logging support doubles the size of
the API for
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:22:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Forking from
http://forum.dlang.org/post/qsqfcayisriatreqt...@forum.dlang.org
Most relevant quote:
Personally, I think this following quote is the more compelling
argument for that particular case:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at
Yes, assuming Andrei's non-negotiable issues are addressed first.
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:27:15 UTC, safety0ff wrote:
Derp, nevermind that post.
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:22:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
(Davis also supports this point)
To avoid confusion, let me point out that this was me (i.e.,
David), not Jonathan M. Davis.
Reason why I find this strange is because it invalidates main
argument in favor of std.experimental over
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:20:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I should have the overload approach done by tonight
On 7/29/14, 10:27 AM, safety0ff wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:22:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Forking from
http://forum.dlang.org/post/qsqfcayisriatreqt...@forum.dlang.org
Most relevant quote:
Personally, I think this following quote is the more compelling argument
for that particular
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:35:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I'd just want to have a simple litmus test that prevents
std.experimental from becoming a dumping ground of unfinished
work.
I screwed up that post, but in brief I meant to agree with your
quote for the case of
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 06:35:06 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
The idea is you test your code with assertions enabled, and
then only use '-release' when you are sure your program
functions correctly.
It never works correctly, until proven correct formally with an
automated theorem prover. As
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 10:40:33 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
In a correct program (a necessary but not sufficient condition
for which is to not violate it's asserts) it is the same.
Define a correct program.
This is a correct program:
S = full specification ( say in prolog or haskell )
P =
Frankly, if Dub is bundled with D, I don't see any reason for
std.experimental to exist. Those two ideas just seemed to
develop in parallel.
On 7/29/14, 12:01 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Frankly, if Dub is bundled with D, I don't see any reason for
std.experimental to exist. Those two ideas just seemed to
develop in parallel.
The way I see it:
* dub: a loose federation of libraries with no implied promise.
* std.experimental: 99% sure
On 7/29/2014 3:13 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 07:31:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
You can choose to disable assertions with a switch, or not. Having a choice up
to you doesn't make it useless.
Yes I know what are options to make it work. I don't know how to make it work
in a
On 7/29/14, 12:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/29/2014 3:13 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 07:31:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
You can choose to disable assertions with a switch, or not. Having a
choice up
to you doesn't make it useless.
Yes I know what are options to make it
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:22:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Forking from
http://forum.dlang.org/post/qsqfcayisriatreqt...@forum.dlang.org
Most relevant quote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:15:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
We put something in std.experimental when we can't imagine
what
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 10:40:33 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 09:40:27 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
assert(a = 0);
return a 0;
is equivalent to
assert(a = 0);
return true;
but only in non-release mode. In release mode, this
effectively becomes
return
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 16:54:48 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 08:41:48 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 07:46:34 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
I gave this a try, and overall it looks like an improvement,
but I think we need another name than
On 07/29/2014 03:07 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/28/2014 1:49 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
You might want to assert() that you have enough headroom in a statically
allocated buffer when testing. Say you assert that the buffer is never
more than
50% full
Second, the way I look at it, you can read the methods like
this:
write - write
writef - write formatted
log - log
logf - log formatted
logc - log conditionally
logcf - log conditionally and formatted
Andrei is Romanian; not Hungarian.
And a Romanian is AFAIK also not
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 20:07:16 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
He still has a point. This is just another case of the keyword
not matching the semantics very well. It would be more aptly
named 'assume' instead of 'assert' (and be un-@safe if release
mode is to trust it unconditionally.)
But you
On 07/29/2014 08:54 PM, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 10:40:33 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
In a correct program (a necessary but not sufficient condition for
which is to not violate it's asserts) it is the same.
Define
On 7/29/2014 1:07 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/29/2014 03:07 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/28/2014 1:49 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
You might want to assert() that you have enough headroom in a statically
allocated buffer when testing. Say you assert that
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:34:39 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:22:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
(Davis also supports this point)
To avoid confusion, let me point out that this was me (i.e.,
David), not Jonathan M. Davis.
LOL. Yeah. I haven't said anything in that
On 7/29/14, 1:52 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
I find this splitting of hares ... to be entirely meaningless.
Hunters claim that rabbit tastes less gamey, if we're going to be
splitting anything.
(Please forgive the silliness.)
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 20:52:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I've read yours and Ola's explanations of the difference, and I
still can't discern any difference, other than the spelling.
Here is the difference:
action1(cmd){
assert( !lowercase( cmd )); //wrong theorem
if(cmd=='format')
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 21:08:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Sorry, got that wrong (it is late), meant to do this:
lowercase(str){
if(...){
assume(str=='format'); // wrong theorem
}
...
}
action1(cmd){
cmd = lowercase( cmd );
if(cmd=='format') format_harddisk()
}
There's a pretty negative article about disqus making the rounds:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2c19of/your_users_deserve_better_than_disqus/
Since we're considering adding disqus flow to our docs, we better think
this well. Any thoughts?
Andrei
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 21:47:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
There's a pretty negative article about disqus making the
rounds:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2c19of/your_users_deserve_better_than_disqus/
Since we're considering adding disqus flow to our docs, we
better
On 07/29/2014 10:52 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/29/2014 1:07 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/29/2014 03:07 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/28/2014 1:49 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
You might want to assert() that you have enough headroom in a
statically
On 07/29/2014 11:08 PM, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
The best you can hope to have is partial correctness. Even with a system
for formal verification.
Well, why would this be true?
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:31:27 UTC, Robert burner Schadek
wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:20:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I should have the overload approach done by tonight
Have a look at
https://github.com/linkrope/log/blob/master/src/log.d#L55-66 for
the overloading.
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 22:15:18 UTC, linkrope wrote:
Have a look at
https://github.com/linkrope/log/blob/master/src/log.d#L55-66
for the overloading.
It's much cleaner than the 'static if' sequences.
of course, because you are doing much less
On 07/26/2014 12:15 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Hello,
We've just open-sourced another D project at Facebook (just a developer
beta), an ODBC driver for the Presto database engine:
https://github.com/prestodb/presto-odbc.
The Windows version works well now, and Mark Isaacson (the author of
Walter Bright:
Here there are no new language features required. muls() being
an intrinsic means the compiler knows about it. The compiler
already does data flow analysis on constants, meaning it knows
that x is 100,
Another example program, hopefully more clear:
void main(in string[]
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 06:09:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
My vote is a qualified yes contingent upon fixes that I'll
give detail on below. In the current form my vote is no
seeing as the module makes a number of unforced tactical
errors. Overall I think the goods are there, and
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:09:27PM +, Robert burner Schadek via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 06:09:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[...]
4. Replace defaultLogger with theLog. Logger is a word, but one
that means lumberjack so it doesn't have the appropriate
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 17:22:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
[snip]
I wonder what are other opinions.
Here's what I'd like to see as a D user with std.experimental...
dub:
== free-for-all libraries of varying quality
== Promoted on official D website.
== Included in the D download
On 7/29/14, 3:25 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 July 2014 at 22:15:18 UTC, linkrope wrote:
Have a look at
https://github.com/linkrope/log/blob/master/src/log.d#L55-66 for the
overloading.
It's much cleaner than the 'static if' sequences.
of course, because you are doing much
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
