On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 11:54:04 UTC, Tony wrote:
dmd --version
DMD64 D Compiler v2.077.0
Copyright (c) 1999-2017 by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright
dmd test_contracts.d
test_contracts.d(13): Error: missing `body { ... }` after `in`
or `out`
Just made a pull to fix this:
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 21:14:58 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
It would have been better to explain in the documentation that
body was being phased out rather than just removing it right
when the changes were made to dmd. It's already caused problems
due to folks trying to use do and it
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 21:19:58 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 12:54:37 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
Good question, it's even not in the changelog:
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 12:54:37 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
Good question, it's even not in the changelog:
On Sunday, November 19, 2017 21:07:53 Meta via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 12:54:37 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> > Yeah, "no worries" but for example a few weeks ago a bug report
> > has drawn my attention:
> >
> > https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17925
> >
> > After
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 12:54:37 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
Yeah, "no worries" but for example a few weeks ago a bug report
has drawn my attention:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17925
After testing some code with i've indeed observed that the
transition period for `do` had
On Saturday, 18 November 2017 at 19:22:25 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Saturday, 18 November 2017 at 16:21:30 UTC, Eljay wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2011 at 18:59:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/27/2011 10:35 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I'll be _very_ excited to have both the destructor issues
and
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 11:02:37 UTC, bauss wrote:
They wouldn't need to know. Obviously they know its purpose and
how it works if they have it in their source code, if they
don't have it in their source code and they look at contracts,
then they will be fine either way as it's not a
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 11:02:37 UTC, bauss wrote:
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 08:13:32 UTC, Tony wrote:
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 08:05:38 UTC, Tony wrote:
OK, but how would someone who is looking at:
https://docarchives.dlang.io/v2.074.0/spec/contracts.html
I wish this
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 08:13:32 UTC, Tony wrote:
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 08:05:38 UTC, Tony wrote:
OK, but how would someone who is looking at:
https://docarchives.dlang.io/v2.074.0/spec/contracts.html
I wish this board had an edit function. That should be
"OK, but how
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 08:05:38 UTC, Tony wrote:
OK, but how would someone who is looking at:
https://docarchives.dlang.io/v2.074.0/spec/contracts.html
I wish this board had an edit function. That should be
"OK, but how would someone who is looking at:
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 07:21:32 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 04:57:11 UTC, Tony wrote:
On Saturday, 18 November 2017 at 19:22:25 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Saturday, 18 November 2017 at 16:21:30 UTC, Eljay wrote:
[...]
Don't worry, you've got a few years yet. Currently
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 04:57:11 UTC, Tony wrote:
On Saturday, 18 November 2017 at 19:22:25 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Saturday, 18 November 2017 at 16:21:30 UTC, Eljay wrote:
[...]
Don't worry, you've got a few years yet. Currently `body`is
not even deprecated; it's become a conditional
On Saturday, 18 November 2017 at 19:22:25 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Saturday, 18 November 2017 at 16:21:30 UTC, Eljay wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2011 at 18:59:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/27/2011 10:35 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I'll be _very_ excited to have both the destructor issues
and
On Saturday, 18 November 2017 at 16:21:30 UTC, Eljay wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2011 at 18:59:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/27/2011 10:35 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I'll be _very_ excited to have both the destructor issues and
the const issues
sorted out. They are some of the more
On Saturday, 18 November 2017 at 16:21:30 UTC, Eljay wrote:
On Monday, 28 March 2011 at 18:59:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/27/2011 10:35 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]
Yes, I agree those are the top priority at the moment, now
that we have the 64 bit compiler online and the worst of
On Monday, 28 March 2011 at 18:59:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/27/2011 10:35 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I'll be _very_ excited to have both the destructor issues and
the const issues
sorted out. They are some of the more annoying quality of
implementation
issues at the moment.
Yes, I
Hate to reopen old threads.. but I didn't find another one on
this topic.
Supposing someone wants to implement a browser in D.
And his bindings to JavaScript need to expose HTMLDocument.body
property.
Is that a use case that would work for allowing body not to be a
keyword?
--
Vlad
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5775
Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On 3/27/2011 10:35 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I'll be _very_ excited to have both the destructor issues and the const issues
sorted out. They are some of the more annoying quality of implementation
issues at the moment.
Yes, I agree those are the top priority at the moment, now that we have
On 3/23/2011 3:17 PM, Alvaro wrote:
D already has a long list of keywords, reserved words can't be used as
identifiers, which can be annoying. body in particular is a common noun that
programmers would gladly use as a variable name in physics simulation,
astronomy, mechanics, games, health, etc.
On 2011-03-27 22:23, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/23/2011 3:17 PM, Alvaro wrote:
D already has a long list of keywords, reserved words can't be used as
identifiers, which can be annoying. body in particular is a common noun
that programmers would gladly use as a variable name in physics
El 25/03/2011 22:40, piotrek escribió:
Speaking of real world examples(is my world really real? :D)
I hit body when I was doing an html generator. Long before that when
I was reading language specification I looked with distaste at the body
keyword in the contract programming section. Still no
Alvaro:
A bit off-topic post:
It's not off-topic, you have shown one case where the keyword body is useful
as variable name.
I first hit body when porting the nbody benchmark test from the
Computer Language Shootout to D.
Time ago I have translated to D (D1, mostly) all Shootout
On 3/24/2011 12:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I wouldn't mind it becoming a contextual keyword (like C#'s get and set
inside properties).
This is exactly what it should be.
piotrek wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:04:25 +0100, Don wrote:
piotrek wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:37:12 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote:
On Mar 24, 11 19:00, sclytrack wrote:
== Quote from piotrek (star...@tlen.pl)'s article
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:17:32 +0100, Alvaro wrote:
D already has a long
On 3/25/11, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
snip
Well, I was really referring to C client-code, not templated D library
code, maybe I should have made myself more clear on that :)
Generic code uses generic names, it makes the most sense there. So I
agree with everything you've said.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:09:25 +0100, Don wrote:
piotrek wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:04:25 +0100, Don wrote:
piotrek wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:37:12 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote:
On Mar 24, 11 19:00, sclytrack wrote:
== Quote from piotrek (star...@tlen.pl)'s article
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011
On 3/25/2011 2:09 AM, Don wrote:
Walter makes all the language decisions. The rest of us have just been able to
convince him on multiple occasions (but I think that even Andrei has not
achieved 50% convince rate). Hint #1: if you want to convince Walter, produce
some real world use cases. Hint
On 3/25/2011 2:40 PM, piotrek wrote:
I really appreciate Walter's work and didn't want
to make any pressure on him (like I could ;). I'm grateful for him for all
amazing staff he did. D is the most beautiful language I have seen. It
has its pitfalls, but we know there can't be any perfect one.
Walter:
Thanks for the kind words. Not everyone thinks that way
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/gacna/bye_bye_nullpointerexceptions/c1m3r7n
:-)
I didn't see that thread, thank you for the link. Some of your answers shown in
that Reddit page were really wrong (like that null
Interestingly, you don't even have to remove body from the syntax to
remove it as a keyword, as it's only used in this context (that I know
of), where no other symbols make sense.
I'm all for this change.
Since there are already similar differences between 1.0 and 2.0 (e.g.
invariant()) and projects can be fixed by a more or less simple search
and replace, this would be a cheap way to clean up a keyword that can
truly get in your way (in contrast to some others that
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:17:32 +0100, Alvaro wrote:
D already has a long list of keywords, reserved words can't be used as
identifiers, which can be annoying. body in particular is a common
noun that programmers would gladly use as a variable name in physics
simulation, astronomy, mechanics,
== Quote from piotrek (star...@tlen.pl)'s article
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:17:32 +0100, Alvaro wrote:
D already has a long list of keywords, reserved words can't be used as
identifiers, which can be annoying. body in particular is a common
noun that programmers would gladly use as a variable
sclytrack:
Copied the following line from the Vala (=mostly reference counted language)
web page.
It is possible to use a reserved keyword as identifier name by prefixing it
with
the @ character. This character is not part of the name. For example, you can
name
a method foreach by
On Mar 24, 11 19:00, sclytrack wrote:
== Quote from piotrek (star...@tlen.pl)'s article
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:17:32 +0100, Alvaro wrote:
D already has a long list of keywords, reserved words can't be used as
identifiers, which can be annoying. body in particular is a common
noun that
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:37:12 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote:
On Mar 24, 11 19:00, sclytrack wrote:
== Quote from piotrek (star...@tlen.pl)'s article
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:17:32 +0100, Alvaro wrote:
D already has a long list of keywords, reserved words can't be used
as identifiers, which can be
piotrek wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:37:12 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote:
On Mar 24, 11 19:00, sclytrack wrote:
== Quote from piotrek (star...@tlen.pl)'s article
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:17:32 +0100, Alvaro wrote:
D already has a long list of keywords, reserved words can't be used
as identifiers,
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:04:25 +0100, Don wrote:
piotrek wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:37:12 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote:
On Mar 24, 11 19:00, sclytrack wrote:
== Quote from piotrek (star...@tlen.pl)'s article
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:17:32 +0100, Alvaro wrote:
D already has a long list of
On Mar 24, 11 22:25, piotrek wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:37:12 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote:
On Mar 24, 11 19:00, sclytrack wrote:
== Quote from piotrek (star...@tlen.pl)'s article
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:17:32 +0100, Alvaro wrote:
D already has a long list of keywords, reserved words can't be
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:50:56 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote:
On Mar 24, 11 22:25, piotrek wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:37:12 +0800, KennyTM~ wrote:
On Mar 24, 11 19:00, sclytrack wrote:
== Quote from piotrek (star...@tlen.pl)'s article
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:17:32 +0100, Alvaro wrote:
D already
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:17:32 -0400, Alvaro alvarodotseg...@gmail.com
wrote:
D already has a long list of keywords, reserved words can't be used as
identifiers, which can be annoying. body in particular is a common
noun that programmers would gladly use as a variable name in physics
Sönke Ludwig lud...@informatik.uni-luebeck.de wrote in message
news:imeqnd$12ss$1...@digitalmars.com...
I'm all for this change.
Since there are already similar differences between 1.0 and 2.0 (e.g.
invariant()) and projects can be fixed by a more or less simple search and
replace, this
I definitely had in as a problem. Its because some people like to
use that in C code. (Qt being the most recent example).
I've also had issues with string. That one can be common in C code.
Its a pretty bad habit of naming your variables for what type they are
instead of their purpose. I guess it
I definitely had in as a problem. Its because some people like to
use that in C code. (Qt being the most recent example).
I've also had issues with string. That one can be common in C code.
Its a pretty bad habit of naming your variables for what type they are
instead of their purpose. I
On 3/24/11, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
Now, string is pretty bad on the whole, but then again, there are plenty of
cases where you just don't care about what a string is for.
You don't care now, but you'll care later when its time to fix a bug.
Sometimes, its obvious what a
On 2011-03-24 16:23:40, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 3/24/11, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
Now, string is pretty bad on the whole, but then again, there are plenty
of cases where you just don't care about what a string is for.
You don't care now, but you'll care later when its
On 3/24/11 4:02 AM, Bekenn wrote:
Interestingly, you don't even have to remove body from the syntax to
remove it as a keyword, as it's only used in this context (that I know
of), where no other symbols make sense.
And oh so many keywords could be removed from the language if the
compiler is
On 3/24/2011 12:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
But I don't know that it's so terrible to have it as a keyword. Clearly
there was a free keyword love period in D's past, but I think it takes
a lot more than just we could technically do this without a keyword to
remove it from the language.
D already has a long list of keywords, reserved words can't be used as
identifiers, which can be annoying. body in particular is a common
noun that programmers would gladly use as a variable name in physics
simulation, astronomy, mechanics, games, health, etc. I think body can
be removed from
Yep, this has been brought up at least once before.
Nothing has happened so far.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5775
Summary: body keyword is unnecessary
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5775
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5775
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
55 matches
Mail list logo
