Re: Symbols missing, unmangle!

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:21:52 UTC, Johnson wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:07:29 UTC, lobo wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 20:23:18 UTC, Johnson Jones wrote: [...] Your error message already displays "void Munchhousin.Munchhousin.Go!(short).Go()" Is this not

Re: Bug in D!!!

On 08/30/2017 05:49 PM, EntangledQuanta wrote: > The compiler can and should do this! Yes, the compiler can do it for each compilation but there is also the feature called /separate compilation/ that D supports. With separate compilation, there would potentially be multiple different and

Re: dmd demangle

On Thursday, 31 August 2017 at 02:51:25 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran wrote: I was looking at src/ddmd/link.d, has the below that reads the output of ld. Ah, right you are. My apologies. It'd probably be simple enough to have that demangling on by default. Maybe I'll give it a go later today.

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 23:45:13 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: typeid() will give you the run-time type while typeof() gives the declared (compile time) type, typeid(typeof()) will not give you the run-time type - which in our case is what we want if we are using sub-typing

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 23:40:59 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: Fixed. Committed to master and it should show up in dub soon. Gosh, all that mind bending meta polymorphic mixin reflection multi-dimensional fu and then fall prey to ints and uints and size_ts. Sobering... Ha. Cheers.

Re: dmd demangle

On Thursday, 31 August 2017 at 02:31:24 UTC, Michael V. Franklin wrote: On Thursday, 31 August 2017 at 02:20:00 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran wrote: Just a thought. Can dmd demangle the symbols before spitting the output of ld to stderr? dmd doesn't print the output of ld to stderr, ld does. I

Re: DlangUI v0.7.60 released

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 07:44:54 UTC, Vadim Lopatin wrote: There are a lot of improvements in DlangIDE since last announcement. [...] Is there any themes to download? It's a bit ugly in windows

Re: dmd demangle

Arun Chandrasekaran wrote: Just a thought. Can dmd demangle the symbols before spitting the output of ld to stderr? p.s.: redirecting output to ddemangle may work too, as ddemange will try to detect mangled DMD names, and won't modify other text. this way you can, for example, demangle

Re: dmd demangle

Arun Chandrasekaran wrote: Just a thought. Can dmd demangle the symbols before spitting the output of ld to stderr? no need to ;-) just add this to DFLAGS in dmd.conf, "Envirnment" section: -L--demangle=dlang so, it should look something like this: .. [Environment] DFLAGS=

Re: dmd demangle

On Thursday, 31 August 2017 at 02:20:00 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran wrote: Just a thought. Can dmd demangle the symbols before spitting the output of ld to stderr? dmd doesn't print the output of ld to stderr, ld does. I believe binutils has some support for D symbol demangling thanks to the

dmd demangle

Just a thought. Can dmd demangle the symbols before spitting the output of ld to stderr?

Re: DIPs - question about mores, etiquette and DIP1009 in particular

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:50:22 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:09:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:16:11 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote: DIPs are not voted on. Thanks for letting me know, answers my question. Our leaders would perhaps

Re: Bug in D!!!

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:52:41 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 20:47:12 UTC, EntangledQuanta wrote: This is quite surprising! In the new version pending release (scheduled for later this week), we get a new feature `static foreach` that will let you loop

Re: Editor recommendations for new users.

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 06:21:36PM -0600, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > It's possible to read pretty much any language without syntax > highlighting, but I find that it makes it faster when you have good > syntax highlighting, and I see no reason not to take advantage of it. >

Re: Editor recommendations for new users.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 16:42:46 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 04:24:47PM -0600, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 11:28:35 Anonymouse via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > > On Sunday, 27 August 2017 at 12:11:14 UTC, Petar

Re: Editor recommendations for new users.

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 04:24:47PM -0600, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 11:28:35 Anonymouse via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Sunday, 27 August 2017 at 12:11:14 UTC, Petar Kirov > > > > [ZombineDev] wrote: > > > vim or SublimeText > > > > I want to get

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:49:54 UTC, jmh530 wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:30:12 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:10:38 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 21:30:29 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: In the light of this I

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 18:16:47 UTC, jmh530 wrote: ..\..\dubFolder\openmethods.d-1.0.0-rc.1\source\openmethods.d(970,21): Error: ca nnot implicitly convert expression h of type ulong to uint ..\..\dubFolder\openmethods.d-1.0.0-rc.1\source\openmethods.d(1076,34): Error: c annot

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:30:12 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:10:38 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 21:30:29 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: In the light of this I think your package just became more interesting to me. I

Re: -betterC not working

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:45:27 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:18:07 UTC, SrMordred wrote: DMD64 D Compiler v2.075.1 -betterC as described recently is not yet released. https://dlang.org/changelog/2.076.0_pre.html is where it gets the new behavior, and

Re: DIPs - question about mores, etiquette and DIP1009 in particular

Cecil Ward wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:19:52 UTC, ketmar wrote: it is explicitly stated in DIP that existing syntax will not be deprecated/removed. i guess that reading the DIP before expressing your opinion is the prerequisite... Good to know. A relief. I am full of pain

Re: Bug in D!!!

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:08:03 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 21:51:57 EntangledQuanta via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote: [...] Templates have no idea what arguments you intend to use with them. You can pass them any arguments you want, and as long as they

Re: Bug in D!!!

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 20:47:12 UTC, EntangledQuanta wrote: This is quite surprising! In the new version pending release (scheduled for later this week), we get a new feature `static foreach` that will let you loop through the types you want and declare all the functions that way.

Re: DIPs - question about mores, etiquette and DIP1009 in particular

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:09:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:16:11 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote: DIPs are not voted on. Thanks for letting me know, answers my question. Our leaders would perhaps find a simple pair of numbers to be a useful additional metric?

Re: Bug in D!!!

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:08:03 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 21:51:57 EntangledQuanta via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote: The point you are trying to making, and not doing a great job, is that the compiler cannot create an unknown set of virtual functions

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:30:12 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:10:38 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 21:30:29 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: In the light of this I think your package just became more interesting to me. I

Re: D as a Better C

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:22:23 UTC, Azi Hassan wrote: extern(C) int main(int argc, char*[] argv, char*[] env) That's a D array of pointers. A D array is larger than a C "array" argument, thus you're skipping past it. The correct declaration is (int argc, char** argv, char** env).

Re: DIPs - question about mores, etiquette and DIP1009 in particular

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:19:52 UTC, ketmar wrote: it is explicitly stated in DIP that existing syntax will not be deprecated/removed. i guess that reading the DIP before expressing your opinion is the prerequisite... Good to know. A relief. I am full of pain drugs and missed the

Re: -betterC not working

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:18:07 UTC, SrMordred wrote: DMD64 D Compiler v2.075.1 -betterC as described recently is not yet released. https://dlang.org/changelog/2.076.0_pre.html is where it gets the new behavior, and that isn't scheduled for formal release until the end of the week.

Re: Editor recommendations for new users.

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 21:30:44 UTC, Jerry wrote: On Sunday, 27 August 2017 at 18:08:52 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote: The requirements are rather vague, you can interpret it in a number of ways. The sensible interpretation imho is "as low an install footprint as possible while still

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:10:38 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 21:30:29 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: In the light of this I think your package just became more interesting to me. I think that your work and mine are complementary :-) Here is one strange

Re: Editor recommendations for new users.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 11:28:35 Anonymouse via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Sunday, 27 August 2017 at 12:11:14 UTC, Petar Kirov > > [ZombineDev] wrote: > > vim or SublimeText > > I want to get into vim. It has to be vim, can't be Neovim or gvim > or any other clone; I'm doing it for a Linux

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:10:38 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 21:30:29 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: In the light of this I think your package just became more interesting to me. I think that your work and mine are complementary :-) Yes, one of the

Re: D as a Better C

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:22:23 UTC, Azi Hassan wrote: How should command-line arguments be used in better C ? Looping through argv seems to print environment variables : import core.stdc.stdio; extern(C) int main(int argc, char*[] argv, char*[] env) { foreach(i; 0 .. argc)

Re: D as a Better C

How should command-line arguments be used in better C ? Looping through argv seems to print environment variables : import core.stdc.stdio; extern(C) int main(int argc, char*[] argv, char*[] env) { foreach(i; 0 .. argc) printf("arg %d: %s\n", i, argv[i]); return

Re: Symbols missing, unmangle!

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 22:07:29 UTC, lobo wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 20:23:18 UTC, Johnson Jones wrote: It would be nice if, when symbols are missing, they are unmangled! Error 42: Symbol Undefined

-betterC not working

On Ubuntu: //dub.json { "name": "d_betterc", "dflags" : ["-betterC"] } //source/app.d import std.stdio; extern (C) int main(int argc, char** argv) { int[] x; writeln(x); return 0; } //cmd dub run --config=application --arch=x86_64 --build=debug --compiler=dmd //or dmd

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 21:30:29 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: In the light of this I think your package just became more interesting to me. I think that your work and mine are complementary :-)

Re: DIP 1009--Improve Contract Usability--Formal Review

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 14:05:40 UTC, Mark wrote: I see that in the previous review rounds some people suggested various keywords for designating the return value of a function ("return", "result", ...) in an `out` contract. What about using a plain old underscore? For example: int

Re: Symbols missing, unmangle!

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 20:23:18 UTC, Johnson Jones wrote: It would be nice if, when symbols are missing, they are unmangled! Error 42: Symbol Undefined _D12mMunchhousin12iMunchhousin11__T4GoTsZ4GoMFS12mMunchhousin18__T10MunchhousinTsZ10sMunchhousinfE12mMunchhousin9eGoffZv (void

Re: Bug in D!!!

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 21:51:57 EntangledQuanta via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote: > The point you are trying to making, and not doing a great job, is > that the compiler cannot create an unknown set of virtual > functions from a single templated virtual function. BUT, when you > realize that

Re: Symbols missing, unmangle!

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 21:51:51 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 20:23:18 UTC, Johnson Jones wrote: It would be nice if, when symbols are missing, they are unmangled! Error 42: Symbol Undefined

Re: Symbols missing, unmangle!

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 20:23:18 UTC, Johnson Jones wrote: It would be nice if, when symbols are missing, they are unmangled! Error 42: Symbol Undefined _D12mMunchhousin12iMunchhousin11__T4GoTsZ4GoMFS12mMunchhousin18__T10MunchhousinTsZ10sMunchhousinfE12mMunchhousin9eGoffZv (void

Re: Bug in D!!!

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 21:33:30 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 20:47:12 EntangledQuanta via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote: This is quite surprising! public struct S(T) { T s; } interface I { void Go(T)(S!T s); static final I New() { return new

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 21:30:29 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 20:40:38 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: After mulling over this example, I don't see how this proves that Julia does *not* support run time polymorphism. On the contrary. In that case you are

Re: Protection attribute in another module

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 21:15:56 UTC, Kagamin wrote: Something like mixin("__traits(getProtection, A."~member~")") The following compiles without error. It would be nice if something like this got added to std.traits. template getProtection(string from, string member) {

Re: Bug in D!!!

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 20:47:12 UTC, EntangledQuanta wrote: This is quite surprising! public struct S(T) { T s; } interface I { void Go(T)(S!T s); static final I New() { return new C(); } } abstract class A : I {

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 20:40:38 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: After mulling over this example, I don't see how this proves that Julia does *not* support run time polymorphism. On the contrary. If you translate this to D you get the same result by the way: import std.stdio; class

Re: Editor recommendations for new users.

On Sunday, 27 August 2017 at 18:08:52 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote: The requirements are rather vague, you can interpret it in a number of ways. The sensible interpretation imho is "as low an install footprint as possible while still fulfilling the other requirements". I'm not aware of

Re: Bug in D!!!

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 21:13:19 UTC, Kagamin wrote: It can't work this way. You can try std.variant. Sure it can! What are you talking about! std.variant has nothing to do with it! It works if T is hard coded, so it should work generically. What's the point of templates variables if

Re: Bug in D!!!

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 20:47:12 EntangledQuanta via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote: > This is quite surprising! > > public struct S(T) > { > T s; > } > > > interface I > { > void Go(T)(S!T s); > > static final I New() > { > return new C(); > } > } > > abstract class A : I > { >

Re: Protection attribute in another module

Something like mixin("__traits(getProtection, A."~member~")")

Re: Bug in D!!!

It can't work this way. You can try std.variant.

Re: OpenMAX bindings

On Friday, 25 August 2017 at 03:34:00 UTC, Johnson wrote: Anyone? Since OpenMAX provides header files you can convert them to d using this: https://dlang.org/htod.html You can then link your d code with OpenMAX.

Re: Compiler scalability. Question inspired by OOM errors seen by Crystal language

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 16:39:32 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:01:17AM +, via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] D supports separate compilation by design. I.e. it doesn't require all the source files corresponding to all the object files being linked to produce the

Bug in D!!!

This is quite surprising! public struct S(T) { T s; } interface I { void Go(T)(S!T s); static final I New() { return new C(); } } abstract class A : I { } class C : A { void Go(T)(S!T s) {

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:16:59 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:14:37 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 16:45:19 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: You mentioned Julia in your article, however for clarity I would point out that Julia

Re: fasta parser with iopipe?

On 8/28/17 10:08 AM, biocyberman wrote: @Steve: Yes we talked at dconf 2017. I had to other things so D learning got slow down. I am trying with Fasta format before jumping to Fastq again. The jsoniopipe is full feature, and relatively small project, which can be used to study case. However

Symbols missing, unmangle!

It would be nice if, when symbols are missing, they are unmangled! Error 42: Symbol Undefined _D12mMunchhousin12iMunchhousin11__T4GoTsZ4GoMFS12mMunchhousin18__T10MunchhousinTsZ10sMunchhousinfE12mMunchhousin9eGoffZv (void Munchhousin.Munchhousin.Go!(short).Go() I know some like to read

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 18:48:58 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: I suspect the reason you can't have parametric typed array containers in statically typed compiled languages is that underneath, they are doubly/linked lists, and there is no way of resolving the types at the end of the

Re: DlangUI v0.7.60 released

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 07:44:54 UTC, Vadim Lopatin wrote: [snip] From what I've followed, you sure update the project often! Perhaps more often than what Phobos is upgraded, by all developers combined. Great work.

[Issue 17684] [REG 2.062] `static alias this` bug or incomplete implementation?

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17684 --- Comment #5 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com --- Commits pushed to stable at https://github.com/dlang/dmd https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/bc8d7d8b2419dcd7cb43e2ab819896fd79bb2fc0 Fix Issue 17684 - [REG 2.062] static alias this (Part 3)

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 18:16:47 UTC, jmh530 wrote: I tried installing the latest release from github. Compiling (Windows 7 on DMD with default options) the simple program below import openmethods; mixin(registerMethods); void main() { } gives me the errors: Gosh Windows I

[Issue 17795] [scope] Scope errors not detected in ~= operation

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17795 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||safe --

[Issue 17795] New: [scope] Scope errors not detected in ~= operation

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17795 Issue ID: 17795 Summary: [scope] Scope errors not detected in ~= operation Product: D Version: D2 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:57:49 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: The reason I have never really been comfortable with sub-typing is that the polymorphic types are a black-box, my preference is certainly for parametric type polymorphism. The main disadvantage with parametric polymorphism in

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 18:20:46 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 18:05:38 UTC, jmh530 wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:24:55 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: We had a discussion about automating the call to updateMethods but I don't think that

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 18:05:38 UTC, jmh530 wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:24:55 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: We had a discussion about automating the call to updateMethods but I don't think that anybody thought of putting it in registerMethods. It might work. I'll look

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 15:59:32 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: What happens here is that kick(Animal) is shadowed by kick(Dog). kick(Animal) is a method but it appears to the user and the compiler as an ordinary function - which is generally good. As such it is eligible for UFCS. I

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:24:55 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: We had a discussion about automating the call to updateMethods but I don't think that anybody thought of putting it in registerMethods. It might work. I'll look into it. Thanks for the suggestion... Ali had suggested

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:29:42 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:16:59 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: p.p.s typeof(x[1]) # returns Cat so it isn't really polymorphism - the object is never converted to the "parent" type! Lol ... sorry for the confusion!

Re: DIPs - question about mores, etiquette and DIP1009 in particular

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 05:16:11PM +, Cecil Ward via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > Is there a way I can simply register my vote eg about DIP 1009? My > vote is 'no thanks'. Like the existing system, don't care about the > alleged verbosity / room thing, and please whatever do not deprecate >

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:16:59 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: p.p.s typeof(x[1]) # returns Cat so it isn't really polymorphism - the object is never converted to the "parent" type! Lol ... sorry for the confusion! Which is polymorphism Haha what I know of Julia is what wikipedia

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 16:45:19 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: One thing that confused me was examples like this ... @method Matrix _plus(DiagonalMatrix a, DiagonalMatrix b) { // just add the elements on diagonals // return a DiagonalMatrix } Which is marked as returning a

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 16:37:20 UTC, Q. Schroll wrote: In the article it says: Finally, main calls updateMethods. This should be done before calling any method (typically first thing in main) and each time a library containing methods is dynamically loaded or unloaded. If the

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 17:14:37 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 16:45:19 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: You mentioned Julia in your article, however for clarity I would point out that Julia doesn't have OOP-type polymorphism. There is no notion of being able

Re: DIPs - question about mores, etiquette and DIP1009 in particular

Cecil Ward wrote: Is there a way I can simply register my vote eg about DIP 1009? My vote is 'no thanks'. Like the existing system, don't care about the alleged verbosity / room thing, and please whatever do not deprecate the existing syntax because I use it all over the place and the blocks

DIPs - question about mores, etiquette and DIP1009 in particular

Is there a way I can simply register my vote eg about DIP 1009? My vote is 'no thanks'. Like the existing system, don't care about the alleged verbosity / room thing, and please whatever do not deprecate the existing syntax because I use it all over the place and the blocks can have complex

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 16:45:19 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: You mentioned Julia in your article, however for clarity I would point out that Julia doesn't have OOP-type polymorphism. There is no notion of being able to do something like: Animal snoopy = new Dog(); p.s. my bad, I was

Re: DIP 1009--Improve Contract Usability--Formal Review

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 14:57:38 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 14:05:40 UTC, Mark wrote: [...] int abs(int x) out(_ >= 0) { return x>0 ? x : -x; } The ambiguity issue of having two results in one scope [1] applies. [1]

Re: Released vibe.d 0.8.1

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 07:47:53 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote: Apart from removing the old vibe-d:diet package in favor of diet-ng, this release most notably contains a number of performance improvements in the HTTP server, as well as improvements and fixes in the WebSocket code.

Re: Article: Writing Julia style multiple dispatch code in D

On Monday, 28 August 2017 at 13:19:19 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Thursday, 24 August 2017 at 23:50:21 UTC, data pulverizer wrote: I find OOP-polymorphic types ultimately unsatisfying, but I don't know of anyway to write, compile and load a D script with new types and methods on the fly

Re: Compiler scalability. Question inspired by OOM errors seen by Crystal language

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:01:17AM +, via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > D supports separate compilation by design. I.e. it doesn't require all > the source files corresponding to all the object files being linked to > produce the final executable, to be loaded in memory by the compiler. Yes, I

Re: Compiler scalability. Question inspired by OOM errors seen by Crystal language

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:53:42AM +, Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > The problem with D is the memory hogging nature of CTFE and the sheer > number of templates that get instantiated when compiling big > codebases. Symbol length is also a problem but that eats you dose >

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

In the article it says: Finally, main calls updateMethods. This should be done before calling any method (typically first thing in main) and each time a library containing methods is dynamically loaded or unloaded. If the something has to be done at the beginning, we have a tool for that:

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 15:42:09 UTC, jmh530 wrote: One thing you didn't really cover is how seamlessly interacts with normal polymorphism. For instance, what if to your first example, I add the following function (note: without @method) and adjust main as below. I see no reason why

Re: Editor recommendations for new users.

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 15:27:43 UTC, b4s1L3 wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 11:28:35 UTC, Anonymouse wrote: Dutyl[3] seems much more interesting but also more daunting, considering that my vim knowledge so far largely consists of :wq and :q!. Yeah, haha, that's the basic

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 15:10:03 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: I sort of agree, and somewhat regret not picking 'openmethod'. I considered both. Also @specialize. If anyone had pushed for @openmethod before the article, I would almost certainly have given in. My reasoning was, I

Re: Events in D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 14:46:12 UTC, Kagamin wrote: https://dpaste.dzfl.pl/f7c5fc49d80f Like this. If you need locking, write another mixin, it's just a very small convenience wrapper. I don't understand how this helps. -What if I want an event to lock a shared mutex of the

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 15:14:04 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: On 30/08/2017 4:10 PM, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 14:37:14 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran wrote: [...] I sort of agree, and somewhat regret not picking 'openmethod'. I considered both. Also

Re: Editor recommendations for new users.

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 11:28:35 UTC, Anonymouse wrote: Dutyl[3] seems much more interesting but also more daunting, considering that my vim knowledge so far largely consists of :wq and :q!. Yeah, haha, that's the basic command you need to know when the time comes to rebase a git

Re: Editor recommendations for new users.

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 11:28:35 UTC, Anonymouse wrote: On Sunday, 27 August 2017 at 12:11:14 UTC, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote: vim or SublimeText I want to get into vim. It has to be vim, can't be Neovim or gvim or any other clone; I'm doing it for a Linux class. I'm on Arch

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On 30/08/2017 4:10 PM, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 14:37:14 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 13:35:22 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 04:48:11 UTC, Arun What was your rationale for `openmethod` instead of

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 14:37:14 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 13:35:22 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 04:48:11 UTC, Arun What was your rationale for `openmethod` instead of just `method`? Just that `openmethod` precisely

Re: "Range invalidation" ?

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 13:28:48 Mark via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > C++ has the issue of iterator invalidation, where certain > operations on a container while iterating on it may invalidate > the iterator, in which case it is no longer safe to use the > iterator. > > D has ranges, but

Re: DIP 1009--Improve Contract Usability--Formal Review

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 14:05:40 UTC, Mark wrote: [...] int abs(int x) out(_ >= 0) { return x>0 ? x : -x; } The ambiguity issue of having two results in one scope [1] applies. [1] http://forum.dlang.org/post/oihbot$134s$1...@digitalmars.com

Re: Events in D

https://dpaste.dzfl.pl/f7c5fc49d80f Like this. If you need locking, write another mixin, it's just a very small convenience wrapper.

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 13:35:22 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 04:48:11 UTC, Arun What was your rationale for `openmethod` instead of just `method`? Just that `openmethod` precisely expresses it's intent and `method` is too generic.

Re: DIP 1009--Improve Contract Usability--Formal Review

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 12:26:43 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: The first stage of the formal review for DIP 1009 [1], "Improve Contract Syntax", is now underway. From now until 11:59 PM ET on September 13 (3:59 AM GMT on September 14), the community has the opportunity to provide last-minute

Re: Open Methods: From C++ to D

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 at 04:48:11 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran wrote: On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 12:45:50 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote: On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 at 12:09:01 UTC, Mark wrote: Nice. This does seem superior to the visitor pattern. Here is another example - AST traversal:

  1   2   >