On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 at 11:26:38 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
BTW, what do you think about this problem:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/cokicokwqnscaktxi...@forum.dlang.org
?
That's a great feature! Don't inherit if it's not the right tool,
and it almost never is. We have interfaces and alias this
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 at 12:07:18 UTC, Pierre Krafft wrote:
Except for the syntax I can't come up with a problem that would
be better solved using inheritance than using composition.
How would you interate a collection of widgets without
polymorphism, i.e. any generic handling?
On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 12:51:45 UTC, Delirius wrote:
I read a thread here where he wrote you should get rid of those
in/out contracts and replace them with assert()s in the
function body.
That was only because contracts with Allman style increase line
count.
BTW, what do you think
On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 12:51:45 UTC, Delirius wrote:
The D features which interest me the most are those supporting
contract-based programming. I want to experiment with that and
I know no other production ready language which has this level
of support, except the original gangsta Eiffel
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 at 12:13:00 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 at 12:07:18 UTC, Pierre Krafft wrote:
Except for the syntax I can't come up with a problem that
would be better solved using inheritance than using
composition.
How would you interate a collection of
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 at 12:43:09 UTC, UselessManagerine
wrote:
Doesn't a OSS version exist, in paralelle auf the commerzial
one ?
In my book all those GPL your code or buy an expensive
enterprise license offers well as might not exist. They are
attractive to very few people. Also in
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 at 13:34:29 UTC, Pierre Krafft wrote:
So use a collection of interface instead of a collection of
base class. If you squint you could say that what I promote is
a way of doing inheritance, and I would agree. This is like
doing inheritance, with a bit worse syntax but
On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 at 11:26:38 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 12:51:45 UTC, Delirius wrote:
I read a thread here where he wrote you should get rid of
those in/out contracts and replace them with assert()s in the
function body.
That was only because contracts with
in the function body.
Now we all know that the vultures are already circling above Mr.
Bright and after his departure Alexandrescu will be D's Ceausescu
(horrible pun intended) and that really makes me worry about the
future of contract-based programming in D.
But I am not following D's development
On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 13:11:01 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 12:51:45 UTC, Delirius wrote:
I know no other production ready language which has this
level of support, except the original gangsta Eiffel but the
only
Ada2012? Some languages use require and
On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 12:51:45 UTC, Delirius wrote:
The D features which interest me the most are those supporting
contract-based programming. I want to experiment with that and
I know no other production ready language which has this level
of support, except the original gangsta Eiffel
On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 12:51:45 UTC, Delirius wrote:
I know no other production ready language which has this level
of support, except the original gangsta Eiffel but the only
Ada2012? Some languages use require and ensure or a similar
notion in the body of a function for pre/post
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 06:20:06PM +, w0rp via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I'm a big fan of contracts, and for me it's one of the D features I
love. The syntax really doesn't bother me. Given the rest of the
syntax in the language, it's not possible to reduce it much further.
Then again, I'm not
I'm a big fan of contracts, and for me it's one of the D features
I love. The syntax really doesn't bother me. Given the rest of
the syntax in the language, it's not possible to reduce it much
further. Then again, I'm not one to care about syntax too much
anyway. I tend to care more about
14 matches
Mail list logo
