On Saturday, 18 June 2016 at 19:49:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/18/2016 8:38 AM, tsbockman wrote:
removing auto decode (what's the point, when Andrei is
emphatic that the feature itself cannot ever be deprecated?).
Even so, those discussions were very recent; it is quite
possible that
On 6/18/2016 8:38 AM, tsbockman wrote:
There are specific reasons, aired in the discussions, as to why people may not
be interested in working on BigDecimal (perceived as being of importance mainly
to the finance industry, who is unlikely to contribute anything back in return)
or removing auto
On 6/18/2016 4:21 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Now you're doing exactly as you're telling us not to do. Writing an important
post deep inside a thread, with a completely different subject, that nobody will
see. Put it on the front page of dlang.org or somewhere visible.
Good point.
On 6/18/2016 6:46 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
I created this: https://wiki.dlang.org/Walter_Andrei_Action_List
And PR's to dmd, druntime, and phobos' README.md that points to it.
If you could keep that list up to date, would be really hopeful IMO.
Having it in the readme is a good idea.
On Saturday, 18 June 2016 at 10:25:43 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
[...]
I've given them a list, and they did something else, every time.
Off the top of my head, work items for phobos I've repeatedly
posted in various forms:
[...]
People actually have been working on a lot of the stuff in your
I created this: https://wiki.dlang.org/Walter_Andrei_Action_List
And PR's to dmd, druntime, and phobos' README.md that points to
it.
If you could keep that list up to date, would be really hopeful
IMO.
https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/1597
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/5874
On 2016-06-18 12:25, Walter Bright wrote:
Off the top of my head, work items for phobos I've repeatedly posted in
various forms:
1. eliminate all gratuitous use of gc
2. review all Phobos modules for compatibility with ranges - std.zip,
for example, was done before ranges and does not work
On 6/18/2016 1:52 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
Ok, where is this list? And where is list for phobos?
I've posted them from time to time. Most recently I put a "call to action" in
the thread "size_t vs uintptr_t". Many people have come up to me and asked for a
list of ideas, I've given
Ok, where is this list? And where is list for phobos?
Sure, some people are a allowed to pull stuff into phobos. But
only stuff that does not introduce new names and Andrei does not
veto.
Of course you can not appoint people, but you should have an idea
who you think is sharing your overall
On 6/17/2016 7:20 PM, tsbockman wrote:
It's been on DUB since before this review started, and I plan to support it
(including incorporating some of the feedback from this thread).
Thanks, that's a good plan.
On Saturday, 18 June 2016 at 01:28:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/17/2016 4:38 PM, tsbockman wrote:
This is, of course, his prerogative as lead designer for
Phobos, but it also
kills any interest I have in working on the project for free.
You know, I do sympathize, even if I don't agree.
On 6/17/2016 4:38 PM, tsbockman wrote:
This is, of course, his prerogative as lead designer for Phobos, but it also
kills any interest I have in working on the project for free.
You know, I do sympathize, even if I don't agree. One big motivation for D in
the first place was the C++
On 6/17/2016 3:17 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
* Andrei, Walter create a specific task list and designs
I do all the time. The net result - nothing happens.
People do what they want to do when it's volunteer work. Presenting people with
a list of things to work on does not result in work
On Friday, 17 June 2016 at 20:49:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/17/2016 7:52 AM, tsbockman wrote:
What caught me off guard here isn't that Andrei had to approve
it in some sense
- it's that the judgment of everyone else who approved my
design seemingly
became irrelevant the moment that
What you said is true, but IMO you're missing the point.
IMO the current D Process is just backward. Having people working
on stuff openly, with intend for phobos inclusion, for a lot of
months and that putting it up for review clearly does not work.
And if you and/or Andrei at that point say
On 6/17/2016 7:52 AM, tsbockman wrote:
What caught me off guard here isn't that Andrei had to approve it in some sense
- it's that the judgment of everyone else who approved my design seemingly
became irrelevant the moment that Andrei decided he could do better.
History is full of examples of
On Friday, 17 June 2016 at 14:52:27 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
What caught me off guard here isn't that Andrei had to approve
it in some sense - it's that the judgment of everyone else who
approved my design seemingly became irrelevant the moment that
Andrei decided he could do better.
I hope
On Friday, 17 June 2016 at 08:58:51 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2016-06-17 00:30, Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei is in charge of the library and has my full support.
We have to make it very clear, somewhere, exactly what requires
Andrei's approval and what doesn't. No, I cannot do that
On 6/17/2016 1:58 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2016-06-17 00:30, Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei is in charge of the library and has my full support.
We have to make it very clear, somewhere, exactly what requires Andrei's
approval and what doesn't. No, I cannot do that because I don't know the
On 2016-06-17 00:30, Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei is in charge of the library and has my full support.
We have to make it very clear, somewhere, exactly what requires Andrei's
approval and what doesn't. No, I cannot do that because I don't know the
requirements.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Friday, 17 June 2016 at 07:16:20 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 17 June 2016 at 06:54:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 23:27:06 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
I do not think this approach will scale in the long run, no
matter who is given that role. Of course, I
On Friday, 17 June 2016 at 06:54:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 23:27:06 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
I do not think this approach will scale in the long run, no
matter who is given that role. Of course, I would be happy to
be proven wrong.
I think maybe the C++
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 23:27:06 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
I do not think this approach will scale in the long run, no
matter who is given that role. Of course, I would be happy to
be proven wrong.
I think maybe the C++ approach is better. If you want something
into C++ std your best bet is
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 22:30:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei is in charge of the library and has my full support.
We've talked many times about raising the bar much higher on
Phobos. It's a tough competitive environment for programming
languages out there, and we should all expect
On 6/16/2016 2:11 PM, tsbockman wrote:
My problem with `checkedint` was that I formed a wrong idea of whose approval I
needed (interested Phobos devs collectively, versus Andrei specifically).
Andrei is in charge of the library and has my full support.
We've talked many times about raising
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 21:52:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
https://www.digitalmars.com/sargon/halffloat.html
Your HTTPS cert seems to be broken
On 6/16/2016 6:56 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I understand your frustration. All I can say is, open source contributors have
to have a thicker skin (and I'm not saying you don't). We are all human and have
our faults, and any team in any context can have miscommunication, or
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 21:02:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/15/2016 8:56 PM, tsbockman wrote:
Pull requests are routinely reviewed in an upside-down fashion:
1) Formatting
2) Typos
3) Names
4) Tests (and names again)
6) Docs (and names)
8) Design (and more about names)
9) Does this
On 6/15/2016 8:56 PM, tsbockman wrote:
Pull requests are routinely reviewed in an upside-down fashion:
1) Formatting
2) Typos
3) Names
4) Tests (and names again)
6) Docs (and names)
8) Design (and more about names)
9) Does this even belong in Phobos?
It's a consequence of starting to read a
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 13:56:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
And there is a further problem -- Walter and Andrei are
gatekeepers, but are stretched incredibly thin.
Having had some time to think about all it now, I believe this
was my actual problem.
When I started working on
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 06:55:00 UTC, lobo wrote:
Has this work/design been submitted as a DIP? I cannot find it.
I thought all Phobos additions of any magnitude were required
to pass the DIP submission first in order to avoid this sort of
situation. If there is a DIP that was accepted
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 12:25:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Pull requests are routinely reviewed in an upside-down fashion:
1) Formatting
2) Typos
3) Names
4) Tests (and names again)
6) Docs (and names)
8) Design (and more about names)
9) Does this even belong in Phobos?
I don't
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 07:02:21 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
I think anything sufficiently large is likely to be reviewed in
that order. In a lot of cases all the work for 1 - 8 is
progressively done while working out 9. Should people not
mention the smaller mistakes / disagreements they find
On 6/15/16 11:56 PM, tsbockman wrote:
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:53:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/15/16 9:34 PM, tsbockman wrote:
Why didn't you make your design requirements known at any earlier point
in this process? If you are ultimate gate keeper for Phobos (as you seem
to
to
intervene, but I'd say this is already true now.
Per the title of this thread: "std.experimental.checkedint is ready for
comments!". What kind of comments were expected?
Andrei
On 6/15/16 11:56 PM, tsbockman wrote:
Numerous other mentions were made of this project in various contexts on
the forums, in GitHub pull requests, and on the bug tracker - including
discussions in which you participated. 'posts with "checkedint" in the
title' is too narrow of a search filter.
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 03:56:02 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
That is part of the problem, but this is also a fine example of
a broader pattern that I have noticed in D's review process:
Pull requests are routinely reviewed in an upside-down fashion:
1) Formatting
2) Typos
3) Names
4) Tests
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 03:56:02 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:53:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
[...]
Numerous other mentions were made of this project in various
contexts on the forums, in GitHub pull requests, and on the bug
tracker - including
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:53:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/15/16 9:34 PM, tsbockman wrote:
Why didn't you make your design requirements known at any
earlier point
in this process? If you are ultimate gate keeper for Phobos
(as you seem
to be), you ought to make your
On 6/15/16 9:34 PM, tsbockman wrote:
`checkedint` (and @burner's `SafeInt` before it) have been under
development in the open for over a year now. There have been several
discussions in the forums, with feedback being actively solicited.
Significant design changes were made to address various
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 00:33:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 06/15/2016 08:07 PM, tsbockman wrote:
But, I would appreciate it if comments distinguished between:
1) My goals and philosophy differ from yours, versus
2) My implementation is bad.
I think a lot of the high-level
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 00:31:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 06/15/2016 02:50 PM, tsbockman wrote:
What you are proposing is *not* "fixing" my design - it is
basically
scrapping it and replacing it with a ground-up rewrite, with
perhaps
some bits and pieces and general inspiration
On 06/15/2016 08:07 PM, tsbockman wrote:
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 00:03:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/15/2016 07:34 PM, tsbockman wrote:
The whole point of `checkedint` is to be able to write algorithms based
on the simplifying assumption that your variables behave like real,
On 06/15/2016 02:50 PM, tsbockman wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 16:40:19 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I think there are a few considerable issues with the proposal, but
also that all are fixable.
I already sent a much longer message detailing some of the reasons why I
believe my
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 00:06:13 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 06/15/2016 07:13 PM, tsbockman wrote:
Standardizing the error handling methods is also important for
other interoperability-related reasons:
[...]
I don't agree with this. On the face of it, three built-in
policies
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 00:03:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 06/15/2016 07:34 PM, tsbockman wrote:
The whole point of `checkedint` is to be able to write
algorithms based
on the simplifying assumption that your variables behave like
real,
UNbounded mathematical integers, secure in
On 06/15/2016 07:13 PM, tsbockman wrote:
Standardizing the error handling methods is also important for other
interoperability-related reasons:
* If every third-party library designs a different error handling
method,
people writing applications that depend on many libraries will
On 06/15/2016 07:34 PM, tsbockman wrote:
The whole point of `checkedint` is to be able to write algorithms based
on the simplifying assumption that your variables behave like real,
UNbounded mathematical integers, secure in the knowledge that an error
message will be generated if that assumption
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 16:40:19 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
One of the first things I looked for was establishing bounds
for numbers, like Smart!(int, 0, 100) for percentage. For all
its might, this package does not offer this basic facility, and
from what I can tell does not allow
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 18:34:15 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 16:40:19 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Getting to the design: the root of the problem is a byzantine
design that is closed to extension.
The design was closed deliberately because of (8). Template
On 06/15/2016 05:32 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 15.06.2016 18:40, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The only remaining matter is to implement a few preexisting policies
(Hook implementations) to implement typical choices (such as the ones
present today), and the core algorithms for doing bounded
On 15.06.2016 18:40, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
The only remaining matter is to implement a few preexisting policies
(Hook implementations) to implement typical choices (such as the ones
present today), and the core algorithms for doing bounded operations.
The most interesting algorithms are
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 18:50:32 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
What you are proposing is *not* "fixing" my design - it is
basically scrapping it and replacing it with a ground-up
rewrite, with perhaps some bits and pieces and general
inspiration taken from my work.
[...]
If the decision is made
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 16:40:19 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I think there are a few considerable issues with the proposal,
but also that all are fixable.
I already sent a much longer message detailing some of the
reasons why I believe my design is sensible. But, before we
continue
On 06/15/2016 02:26 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/15/2016 9:40 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Looking at the IntFlagPolicy, it offers three canned behavior: throws,
asserts,
and noex. Users cannot customize behavior and there is no information
passed
into the policy (e.g. the operands in case
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 16:40:19 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Thanks for this work.
[...]
I think there are a few considerable issues with the proposal,
but also that all are fixable.
Your message was very long, so for the moment I'm going to filter
it down to just the high-level
On 6/15/2016 9:40 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Looking at the IntFlagPolicy, it offers three canned behavior: throws, asserts,
and noex. Users cannot customize behavior and there is no information passed
into the policy (e.g. the operands in case of overflow, or the numerator in case
of
PR: https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4407
DUB: http://code.dlang.org/packages/checkedint
Thanks for this work. Documentation can be seen here:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 07:17:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2016 11:16 PM, tsbockman wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 00:16:12 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Remove all use of 'you' and 'your' from the documentation.
Done.
I hope you like the results, and are not doing it just
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 07:16:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2016 9:48 PM, tsbockman wrote:
`Int`? `Base`?
'Integer' would work fine.
`BaseInt`?
`SmartInt!Integer` looks weird to me, because of the repetition.
Also, if we're going to use a long name like that I think it
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 07:08:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2016 9:57 PM, tsbockman wrote:
The intent is just as clear this way, and it's less verbose.
Ok. I'd just change the constraint to:
if (isIntegral!N || isCheckedint!N)
You can do the qualification machinations using
On 6/14/2016 11:32 PM, tsbockman wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 00:16:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
-O (DMD) should be a link to the -O flag instructions
http://dlang.org/dmd-windows.html#switch-O
Done.
'--inline' is not a DMD switch
Fixed and linked, like -O.
Tip 'o the hat.
On 6/14/2016 11:16 PM, tsbockman wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 00:16:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Remove all use of 'you' and 'your' from the documentation.
Done.
I hope you like the results, and are not doing it just because I asked.
On 6/14/2016 11:17 PM, tsbockman wrote:
Done.
Pretty dazz!
> (It turns out that they were actually already supported, but I updated the
> docs to make this clearer.)
Ain't it cool when that happens?
On 6/14/2016 9:48 PM, tsbockman wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 03:42:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2016 8:15 PM, tsbockman wrote:
Do I really need to give it some giant multi-word name?
Something better than 'N'.
`Int`? `Base`?
'Integer' would work fine.
Whatever it is
On 6/14/2016 9:57 PM, tsbockman wrote:
The intent is just as clear this way, and it's less verbose.
Ok. I'd just change the constraint to:
if (isIntegral!N || isCheckedint!N)
You can do the qualification machinations using a static if inside the template.
On 2016-06-15 05:15, tsbockman wrote:
Originally I wanted to have the policies just be `throws` and `nothrow`
- but of course `nothrow` is a keyword, so I chose `noex` (short for "no
exceptions") instead. I agree it looks kind of odd though, especially
since I later added the `asserts` policy.
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 00:16:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
-O (DMD) should be a link to the -O flag instructions
http://dlang.org/dmd-windows.html#switch-O
Done.
'--inline' is not a DMD switch
Fixed and linked, like -O.
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 04:48:02 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 03:42:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
* SmartInt.toString(sink, fmt)
* SafeInt.toString(sink, fmt)
* checkedint.to()
* IntFlag.toString(sink, fmt)
* IntFlags.toString(sink, fmt)
I see no love for output
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 00:16:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Remove all use of 'you' and 'your' from the documentation.
Done.
"debuggin" => "debugging"
Done.
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 03:45:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2016 8:23 PM, tsbockman wrote:
This is specified fully in the template constraints:
if (isIntegral!N && isUnqual!N)
if ((isIntegral!N && !isUnqual!N) || isCheckedint!N)
The second overload simply forwards to the
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 03:42:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/14/2016 8:15 PM, tsbockman wrote:
Do I really need to give it some giant multi-word name?
Something better than 'N'.
`Int`? `Base`?
Whatever it is needs to be short; `BaseIntegralType` is *way* too
long for this and
On 6/14/2016 8:23 PM, tsbockman wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 00:16:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
A complete list of what types are acceptable for 'N' would be desirous, too.
This is specified fully in the template constraints:
if (isIntegral!N && isUnqual!N)
if ((isIntegral!N
On 6/14/2016 8:15 PM, tsbockman wrote:
N is a basic integral type, it needs a better name than 'N'. How about
'BaseType' or even 'BaseIntegralType'? A complete list of what types are
acceptable for 'N' would be desirous, too.
`N` is not a public symbol, and it's used all over the place.
It
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 00:16:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
A complete list of what types are acceptable for 'N' would be
desirous, too.
This is specified fully in the template constraints:
if (isIntegral!N && isUnqual!N)
if ((isIntegral!N && !isUnqual!N) || isCheckedint!N)
The
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 00:16:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Overall, I find the documentation to be unusually good. Nice
work!
Thanks. :-D
.noex
The .noex member is oddly named, being a negative and no idea
what 'ex' means. It sets a
Overall, I find the documentation to be unusually good. Nice work!
.noex
The .noex member is oddly named, being a negative and no idea what 'ex'
means. It sets a sticky flag on error, so perhaps .sticky?
---
N is a basic integral type, it
On 6/14/2016 4:25 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Thanks for doing this!
On 6/7/2016 1:50 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
== SmartInt ==
SmartInt smartOp strive to actually give the mathematically correct answer
whenever possible, rather than just signaling an error.
== SafeInt ==
SafeInt safeOp
Thanks for doing this!
On 6/7/2016 1:50 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
== SmartInt ==
SmartInt smartOp strive to actually give the mathematically correct answer
whenever possible, rather than just signaling an error.
== SafeInt ==
SafeInt safeOp strive to match the behaviour of the basic
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 13:58:29 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
Given the above, I believe we should move forward with
`checkedint` as-is. Someone can add a `BoundInt` type to it
later, if there is demand.
Ok. Thanks.
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 10:39:01 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
Have you thought about extending checkedint to something
similar to bounded integer wrapper type like my `bound.d`?
I spent some time studying the possibility of a `BoundInt` type.
Some conclusions I reached:
1) Designing and
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 10:34:49 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 10:33:34 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote:
Any documentation/example?
Whoops I see it's in PR. You should link here too :)
I can't, because the link is not stable. The docs are rebuilt and
given a new URL
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 10:39:01 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
providing Ada-style module type at
Should be:
providing Ada-style modulo type at
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 08:50:07 UTC, Robert burner Schadek
wrote:
PR: https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4407
I also have
https://github.com/nordlow/phobos-next/blob/master/src/bound.d
providing Ada-style range type at
https://github.com/nordlow/phobos-next/blob/master/src/bound.d#L286
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 10:33:34 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 10:20:58 UTC, Robert burner Schadek
wrote:
In two weeks I will talk to tsbockmann how much time he needs
to work in all comments.
After he is done I will start the formal review phase.
p.s.
@everybody
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 10:20:58 UTC, Robert burner Schadek
wrote:
In two weeks I will talk to tsbockmann how much time he needs
to work in all comments.
After he is done I will start the formal review phase.
p.s.
@everybody please take an interest. This module can give D
another
In two weeks I will talk to tsbockmann how much time he needs to
work in all comments.
After he is done I will start the formal review phase.
p.s.
@everybody please take an interest. This module can give D
another strategic advantage over our competition.
http://forum.dlang.org/post/jxaisipbdqfifpncn...@forum.dlang.org
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 08:50:07 UTC, Robert burner Schadek
wrote:
...
I left my commentary in the PR. Overall it looks pretty good
design wise, and I would totally vote for it's inclusion in
Phobos.
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 08:50:07 UTC, Robert burner Schadek
wrote:
I will do the review management.
Thanks.
As with many other languages (C, C++, Java, etc.), D's built-in
integer data types are quite difficult to use correctly.
It is tempting to think of int, for example, as if it were an
actual mathematical integer. Doing so, however leads to buggy
code due to unintuitive behaviour like:
*
91 matches
Mail list logo
