Re: What are we going to do about mobile?

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 05:24:07 UTC, Joakim wrote: I have been saying for some time now that mobile is going to go after the desktop next (http://forum.dlang.org/thread/rionbqmtrwyenmhmm...@forum.dlang.org), Samsung just announced it, for a flagship device that will ship tens of millions:

Re: Proposal: Exceptions and @nogc

On 4/6/2017 6:00 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote: The preallocated exceptions in weka were created as a work around for exceptions requiring GC. If we can throw without invoking the GC, we'll probably be fine with tossing them. Shachar That's what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Excellent, good work.

Re: Creating Tuple or AliasSeq

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 10:26:24 UTC, ANtlord wrote: On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 07:46:40 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: [...] I can't understand. Documentation of cartesianProduct points out about finite arrays. At least one of arrays must be a inifinte array. As far as I know finite arrays is

Re: Running out of memory ctfe 16GB

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 20:49:00 UTC, Nierjerson wrote: I am running out of memory trying to generate CTFE code. It is quite large generation but just repetitive loop acting on an array item. Surely 16GB should be enough to compile such a thing? I am using 64-bit dmd. It climes to about

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 22:57:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know that. I just assumed LDC would have gone with a clang-style inline assembler (does clang even have inline asm?). LDC supports both DMD-style asm {} blocks as well as LLVM's native inline

Re: Using template mixin, with or without mixin ?

On 04/07/2017 04:47 PM, biocyberman wrote: I want to use mixin to generate function in-place. In template declaration, I can see 'mixin' keyword is optional. Is it true? What is the difference and when I must use one way over another? This is my program: // This works with and without 'mixin'

Using template mixin, with or without mixin ?

I want to use mixin to generate function in-place. In template declaration, I can see 'mixin' keyword is optional. Is it true? What is the difference and when I must use one way over another? This is my program: // This works with and without 'mixin' attribute. mixin template funcgen(T, U){

[Issue 17304] [SPEC] Anonymous symbols, show or ignore in demangler?

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17304 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@gdcproject.org

[Issue 17304] New: [SPEC] Anonymous symbols, show or ignore in demangler?

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17304 Issue ID: 17304 Summary: [SPEC] Anonymous symbols, show or ignore in demangler? Product: D Version: D2 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

Re: What are we going to do about mobile?

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 14:47:03 UTC, Marco Leise wrote: Am Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:24:07 + schrieb Joakim : [...] That's what I meant by embedded programming. Not those 1mb RAM boards. Smart devices/IoT (home automation, smart cards, industrial machines, etc.) using

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

Now #1 on r/programming subreddit!

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

Jack Stouffer wrote: On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Something that just popped into my head: You've said that you've

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On 4/7/2017 3:57 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote: You've said that you've avoided ever looking at other compiler's code to avoid legal trouble. Is that problem gone now? No, unless the other compiler is Boost as well.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 10:38:36PM +0100, rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On 07/04/2017 10:03 PM, WhatMeWorry wrote: [...] > > I've been coding in D for years now but was unaware of this issue. > > Could someone give this licensing neophyte an explanation and some > >

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Something that just popped into my head: You've said that you've avoided ever looking at

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On 4/7/2017 3:22 PM, David Nadlinger wrote: Just to clarify for people not usually frequenting these circles: LDC does support DMD-style inline assembly, but we use a different implementation. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know that. I just assumed LDC would have gone with a

Re: D support for the Meson build system

On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 19:08:59 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote: Hi! Last week I was at this year's GUADEC conference and listened to a very interesting talk on the Meson build system[2] which is designed for very fast builds and as a much more modern replacement for Automake with a simple

Re: Is DMD breaking BigInt?

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 17:06:31 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Simple Dub build of a Factorial example using Unit-Threaded for testing. Works fine with ldc2 breaks with dmd. This is on Debian Sid fully up to date. |> ldc2 --version LDC - the LLVM D compiler (1.1.1):   based on DMD v2.071.2 and

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 22:02:31 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I'll defer to Martin Nowak on what to do about that. It would help for those who need this for specific versions to let Martin know which ones. Great, thanks -- I'll follow up with Martin on slack.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Congrats! That's a big win, and you deserve all the merits! Enjoy the moment! --- Paolo

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 21:49:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's inline assembler being backend licensed, and so not portable to gdc/ldc. Just to clarify for people not usually frequenting these circles: LDC does support

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On 4/7/2017 2:54 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: My question should have been more specific: will we see the patch changing the license in the source code applied to existing stable release branches? I'd really appreciate it if we could get such a patch applied at least to the current stable

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

Walter Bright wrote: Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's inline assembler being backend licensed, and so not portable to gdc/ldc. yay!

[Issue 17302] [SPEC] QualifiedName mangling does not match compiler.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17302 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@gdcproject.org

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:35:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: It applies to all of it! Cool :-) My question should have been more specific: will we see the patch changing the license in the source code applied to existing stable release branches? I'd really appreciate it if we could get

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On 4/7/2017 1:28 PM, Ulrich Küttler wrote: With all those forks of dmd now well underway, can I please reserve the name 'dork'? ;) HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH! (Hey, I'm feeling pretty good today!)

[Issue 17303] type error in the href url under the link Systems Programming

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17303 --- Comment #1 from a.louan...@gmail.com --- I have forgotten to add there is same issue on the image link. href value for Systems Programming link should system-programming instead of systems-programming --

[Issue 17303] New: type error in the href url under the link Systems Programming

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17303 Issue ID: 17303 Summary: type error in the href url under the link Systems Programming Product: D Version: D2 Hardware: x86 OS: Mac OS X Status: NEW

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On 4/7/2017 12:02 PM, Radu wrote: Also, big up for the whole community as there is a big positive vibe around the news and nobody is complaining about basic stuff missing line website, docs, infrastructure etc. Yes, it's the most positive response to us I've ever seen on HN, by far.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

Note that this also resolves the long-standing legal issue with D's inline assembler being backend licensed, and so not portable to gdc/ldc.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On 4/7/2017 2:04 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote: MIT almost equal though. I suspect that the reason MIT came up with their own license is so they could call it the "MIT License". Branding, ya know.

Re: Running out of memory ctfe 16GB

Jethro wrote: On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 21:02:33 UTC, ketmar wrote: Nierjerson wrote: How to implement trick is this and are you 100% sure it works? e.g., char[] x; x.length = 65536; x.length = 0; this won't work. the moment you did `.length = 0;`, you are returned to point zero.

Re: Running out of memory ctfe 16GB

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 21:02:33 UTC, ketmar wrote: Nierjerson wrote: How to implement trick is this and are you 100% sure it works? e.g., char[] x; x.length = 65536; x.length = 0; this won't work. the moment you did `.length = 0;`, you are returned to point zero. what you have to

[Issue 17302] New: [SPEC] QualifiedName mangling does not match compiler.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17302 Issue ID: 17302 Summary: [SPEC] QualifiedName mangling does not match compiler. Product: D Version: D2 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On 4/7/2017 1:02 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote: AFAIK the reasons it was chosen were 1. It's as close to public domain as you can get in international law Yes. 2. It's on all of the "Accepted OSS Licenses" lists that major corps have because of Boost itself being used in those companies. If your

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On 07/04/2017 4:14 PM, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Hip hip hooray! I'm gonna go get some cake in a cup!

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On 07/04/2017 10:03 PM, WhatMeWorry wrote: On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! I've been coding in D for years now but was unaware

[Issue 11131] variables without linkage shouldn't have a mangling (.mangleof)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11131 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@gdcproject.org

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

Am Fri, 7 Apr 2017 08:14:40 -0700 schrieb Walter Bright : > https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 > > Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to > relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Great news! Maybe someone could notify http://phoronix.com .

Re: Function names and lambdas

On 04/07/2017 11:19 AM, Yuxuan Shui wrote: > On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 18:45:26 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: >> On 04/06/2017 11:37 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: >>> [...] >> >> I think it's just a design choice. C implicitly converts the name of >> the function to a pointer to

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 19:37:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Friday, April 07, 2017 08:14:40 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Well,

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! I've been coding in D for years now but was unaware of this issue. Could someone give this

Re: Running out of memory ctfe 16GB

Nierjerson wrote: How to implement trick is this and are you 100% sure it works? e.g., char[] x; x.length = 65536; x.length = 0; this won't work. the moment you did `.length = 0;`, you are returned to point zero. what you have to do is to maintain "shadow length" yourself, like this:

Re: Running out of memory ctfe 16GB

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 22:42:28 UTC, ketmar wrote: H. S. Teoh wrote: On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:16:20AM +0300, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote: Dmitry Olshansky wrote: [...] or use `char[]` buffer instead, manually increasing it's size by some step. assigning to such array won't do

Re: Self-modifying code! The real kind!

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 20:43:52 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote: On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 05:36:52 UTC, Swoorup Joshi wrote: Self-modifying might be the answer to all sorts of performance problems due to branching. No it's not! You are throwing away your i-cache AND mess up the branch

Re: Self-modifying code! The real kind!

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 18:54:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:36:52AM +, Swoorup Joshi via Digitalmars-d wrote: Self-modifying might be the answer to all sorts of performance problems due to branching. Only problem is security I guess. Don't they disable writes to

Re: Self-modifying code! The real kind!

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 05:36:52 UTC, Swoorup Joshi wrote: Self-modifying might be the answer to all sorts of performance problems due to branching. No it's not! You are throwing away your i-cache AND mess up the branch prediction.

Re: Is DMD breaking BigInt?

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 17:06:31 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: If anyone has any useful intelligence as to what happening and how I can workaround it, I'd be a grateful bunny. You might want to check with LDC from Git master first to see whether it is in fact a 2.073-related problem. — David

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! This is brilliant! Fantastic! With all those forks of dmd now well underway, can I please

Re: Is DMD breaking BigInt?

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 17:06:31 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Simple Dub build of a Factorial example using Unit-Threaded for testing. Works fine with ldc2 breaks with dmd. Can you post the code your using?

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, April 07, 2017 20:02:52 Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 19:37:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > From what I've seen, the fact that we use it so heavily in the > > D community is abnormal > > AFAIK the reasons it was chosen were > > 1. It's

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Very good news and a solid accomplishment for being on top of Hacker News (as of writing

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 19:37:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: From what I've seen, the fact that we use it so heavily in the D community is abnormal AFAIK the reasons it was chosen were 1. It's as close to public domain as you can get in international law 2. It's on all of the "Accepted

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, April 07, 2017 08:14:40 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 > > Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense > it. Thank you, Symantec! Well, this is certainly great news. Does this make dmd the only

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! That is really good news! One less shackle preventing users from adopting :D (and if I am not

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Glorious day for D and Dlangers. Congrats Walter for the tenacity and thanks Symantec for

Re: Self-modifying code! The real kind!

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 05:36:52AM +, Swoorup Joshi via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Self-modifying might be the answer to all sorts of performance > problems due to branching. Only problem is security I guess. Don't > they disable writes to code segment anyway? [...] I don't think the OP was

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:14:40AM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 > > Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to > relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Hooray!! Finally!!! Never thought I'd see this day,

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

Wow, congratulations, and a big thank you to those who made it happen.

Re: Function names and lambdas

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 18:45:26 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: On 04/06/2017 11:37 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: [...] I think it's just a design choice. C implicitly converts the name of the function to a pointer to that function. D requires the explicit & operator:

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 18:51 +0100, Russel Winder wrote: > […] > So now the campaign begins to get DMD formally packaged by Debian and > Fedora. > > Having DMD packaged as well as LDC and GDC will be a great thing for > marketing of D. We also need GDC in Fedora. -- Russel.

Re: GDC and shared libraries

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 19:36 +0200, Johannes Pfau via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > Unfortunately the GCC version (5.3.1) doesn't say much. According to > the GDC changelog shared library support was finished September last > year. This is frontend version >= 2.067, though we never released > 2.067

Re: [OT] Python formatting [was ISO C++ 17 changes]

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 14:05 +, Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 09:01:37 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: > > Why three? There is the format function and now f-strings, that  > > makes two. > > 1. the format function > 2. the new format strings > 3. the old "" %

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:14 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 > > Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to > relicense it.  > Thank you, Symantec! So now the campaign begins to get DMD formally packaged by Debian

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On 4/7/2017 9:10 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 04/07/2017 12:01 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote: Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6419py/the_official_d_compiler_is_now_free_as_in_freedom/ Thanks, someone also put it on hackernews - found it by browsing for "new" threads. --

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! That was nice of Symantec to finally grant your request. Will this mean more work put into

Re: GDC and shared libraries

Am Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:29:46 +0100 schrieb Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d : > At GDC 5.3.1 there was no support for shared libraries, or, at least, > so I believe and encoded in the SCons tests. Is there a version of GDC > from which shared libraries are supported? >

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! <3

Is DMD breaking BigInt?

Simple Dub build of a Factorial example using Unit-Threaded for testing. Works fine with ldc2 breaks with dmd. This is on Debian Sid fully up to date.  |> ldc2 --version LDC - the LLVM D compiler (1.1.1):   based on DMD v2.071.2 and LLVM 3.9.1   built with LDC - the LLVM D compiler (1.1.0)  

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Congrats, this is a great result!

Re: Exceptions in @nogc code

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 16:56:10 UTC, Olivier FAURE wrote: I'm not saying you're wrong, but there's a different between saying "You should flesh out your idea" and "We're not going to respond formally before you submit a DIP". Yes that's essentially my problem here.

Re: Exceptions in @nogc code

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 22:11:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 4/6/2017 2:18 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: You were asking for a link to deadalnix's original discussion, and that's the link I found (somebody else also posted a link to the same discussion). Only deadalnix can

GDC and shared libraries

At GDC 5.3.1 there was no support for shared libraries, or, at least, so I believe and encoded in the SCons tests. Is there a version of GDC from which shared libraries are supported? -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Great news! By 2027, we should no longer hear objections to D based on the backend license.

Re: Walter and Andrei and community relationship management

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 07:24:28 UTC, Nick B wrote: But, it seems that while Walter and Andrei are prepared to put a proposal out on the newsgroup, and then discuss it with the community, and then LATER, if its any good, state they will formally document it into a DIP. For the community,

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Good news. Question: Does this apply from now or can the previous DMD releases also be

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! i don't even know what to say... thank you! i didn't even hoped that this will happen. what a glorious day today.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On 04/07/2017 12:01 PM, Jack Stouffer wrote: On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Reddit:

[Issue 17297] Object.~this not being @nogc is severely limiting @nogc applicability

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17297 Marco Leise changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marco.le...@gmx.de ---

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Reddit:

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On 4/7/2017 8:25 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: Question: will this 'fix' be backported to existing stable releases? Or will it just apply going forward? I ask because it could make a difference to what is legally possible to package for e.g. Linux distros, etc. It applies to all of it!

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Question: will this 'fix' be backported to existing stable releases? Or will it just apply

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! A great step forward for the language! A huge thank you to everyone who made this happen.

Re: dmd Backend converted to Boost License

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 15:14:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec! Congratulations Walter! This is marvellous news :-)

dmd Backend converted to Boost License

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6680 Yes, this is for real! Symantec has given their permission to relicense it. Thank you, Symantec!

Re: What are we going to do about mobile?

Am Thu, 06 Apr 2017 05:24:07 + schrieb Joakim : > D is currently built and optimized for that dying PC platform. As long as the world still needs headless machines running web sites, simulations, cloud services, ...; as long as we still need to edit office documents, run

Re: [OT] Python formatting [was ISO C++ 17 changes]

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 09:01:37 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Why three? There is the format function and now f-strings, that makes two. 1. the format function 2. the new format strings 3. the old "" % syntax

Re: Design to interfaces or Design to introspections

Am Fri, 07 Apr 2017 11:51:10 + schrieb سليمان السهمي (Soulaïman Sahmi) : > […] > > Then I stumbled upon DIP84, which reminded me of the other GoF' > principle "Program to an interface, not an implementation". > And I started wondering why would I ever write code

Re: Function names and lambdas

On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 11:45 -0700, Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > […] > I think it's just a design choice. C implicitly converts the name of > the  > function to a pointer to that function. D requires the explicit & > operator: One of the dangers of being a bit like and a

Re: is char[] faster than string?

On Wednesday, 5 April 2017 at 22:05:07 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: If you are doing lots of concatenation and produce a single big string at the end, take a look at std.array.appender. Though if you're concerned about performance, you really should run a profiler. Last I heard, appender may not be

Design to interfaces or Design to introspections

Back at dconf 2015, Andrei introduced design-by-introspection in his talk "Generic programing must go", he showed that not only classes have "class explosion" problems but so do templates. The basic idea behind design by introspection the way I understand it is similar to the one behind design

[Issue 16521] Wrong code generation with switch + static foreach

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16521 Alex Goltman changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

Re: Creating Tuple or AliasSeq

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 07:46:40 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: Here is a solution: auto objectFactory(ObjectType, Args...)(Args args) { import std.algorithm : cartesianProduct, map; import std.array : array; return cartesianProduct(args).map!(a => ObjectType(a.expand)).array; }

Re: Visual D 0.44 released - VC project integration and Concord debugger extension

On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 07:59:46 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote: On 12.03.2017 13:09, Rainer Schuetze wrote: preliminary support for VS 2017 (no VC project integration yet) VC project integration is now also available in VS 2017. Check out

Re: What are we going to do about mobile?

On 07/04/2017 10:34 AM, Joakim wrote: On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 05:32:41 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: IMO there is two things that need to be done to get D for mobile: 1: ldc needs to natively target and distribute binaries for Android (MIPS, ARM, at least). I'm not sure what you mean by

Re: What are we going to do about mobile?

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 05:32:41 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: IMO there is two things that need to be done to get D for mobile: 1: ldc needs to natively target and distribute binaries for Android (MIPS, ARM, at least). I'm not sure what you mean by "natively target." Do you mean that

[Issue 17301] New: Unhelpful error message on template and non-template struct defined in separate modules

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17301 Issue ID: 17301 Summary: Unhelpful error message on template and non-template struct defined in separate modules Product: D Version: D2 Hardware: All OS: All

Re: Function names and lambdas

On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 18:45 +, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote: > On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 18:37:51 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: > > I am used to a function name being a reference to the function  > > body, cf. lots of other languages. However D rejects: > > > > iterative >

Re: Testing D codes

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 13:49:11 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Is there any need for the unittest block in the application created to run the integration tests? If you don't care to call each and all of them by hand. Test frameworks are handy for extensive testing, builtin unittests work

  1   2   >