On Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 14:16:51 UTC, David wrote:
Lumen, the DCD plugin for Kate/KDevelop will be included in the KDE 4.13
release:
http://kate-editor.org/2014/02/20/lumen-a-code-completion-plugin-for-the-d-programming-language/
Oh boy oh boy. I'm using Kate daily to code in D (I
Following Walter's suggestion, I've updated the design for
better byDsign. Now it includes the official D logo.
http://wendlerchristoph.wordpress.com/designs-for-d/
I'm still not 100% happy with the proportions and exact positions
of things, so I want to tweak it a bit in the next couple of
x-post from
http://forum.dlang.org/post/aiipgaqyddjijpjiu...@forum.dlang.org
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 07:36:46 UTC, ed wrote:
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 23:42:29 UTC, Namespace wrote:
[snip]
That's nice to hear! I would be glad if you could share your
level so I can post it on the website. :)
Sorry, missed this. I'd rather not hand it over in its current
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 14:03:35 UTC, ed wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 07:36:46 UTC, ed wrote:
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 23:42:29 UTC, Namespace wrote:
[snip]
That's nice to hear! I would be glad if you could share your
level so I can post it on the website. :)
Sorry,
Last year, at the conference, after the sessions everyone met up at the
Aloft hotel near Facebook's HQ to have passionate and fruitful discussions
about D and I think a lot of good came out of it.
As someone who was NOT staying at Aloft (and who was fortunate enough to
have a speaker
Steven Schveighoffer wrote in message
news:op.xbm0zbffeav7ka@stevens-macbook-pro.local...
I know that Andrei is now living in the area, and he was the one who
picked Aloft. I'm assuming Andrei's house is likely not the new location
;) Where is the hot spot this year going to be? I want to
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 16:49:34 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Afterparty and Andrei's house, every night.
http://imgur.com/W5AMy0P
On 02/14/2014 03:33 PM, Tourist wrote:
Looks like you're being sarcastic.
What I meant is that sending comments twice disconnects the server. I
can reproduce it every time. Looks like a bug to me.
Please file bug reports.
https://github.com/MartinNowak/drepl/issues
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Note that this is a self-signed certificate, and so when you first access it
you'll get a dire warning from your browser.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:35:10 -0800, Dicebot pub...@dicebot.lv wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:34:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Note that this is a self-signed certificate, and so when you first
access it
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:34:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Note that this is a self-signed certificate, and so when you
first access it you'll get a dire warning from your browser.
Why can't free startssl
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:42:10 -0800, Dicebot pub...@dicebot.lv wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:39:28 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
It probably has to do with the fact that the NSA owns every Root
Signing Key in the world.
And how it is relevant? Not like we are speaking about security
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:40:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Why can't free startssl certificate be used?
I never heard of it.
https://www.startssl.com/?app=1
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:39:28 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
It probably has to do with the fact that the NSA owns every
Root Signing Key in the world.
And how it is relevant? Not like we are speaking about security
here - nothing sensitive is transferred from dlang.org; using
self-signed
On 2/21/2014 12:35 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:34:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Note that this is a self-signed certificate, and so when you first access it
you'll get a dire warning from
22-Feb-2014 00:34, Walter Bright пишет:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Good idea.
Note that this is a self-signed certificate, and so when you first
access it you'll get a dire warning from your browser.
That gets horribly wrong. With this
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:40:29 -0800, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 2/21/2014 12:35 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:34:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Note that this is a
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:35:12 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:34:12 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Note that this is a self-signed certificate, and so when you
first access it you'll get
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:46:05 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:40:29 -0800, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Why can't free startssl certificate be used?
I never heard of it.
I don't think they allow it for anything other than personal
use though.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:55:02 -0500, deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:35:12 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:34:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Note that
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:55:04 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:35:12 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:34:12 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Note that this is a
On 2/21/2014 12:57 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
For $59.90 Walter could get a class 2 organization verification for Digital Mars
and do code signing so we can get rid of that scary message when people run the
installer. We use StartSSL for our code signing and website SSL and are happy
with it.
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:37:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/21/2014 12:57 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
For $59.90 Walter could get a class 2 organization
verification for Digital Mars
and do code signing so we can get rid of that scary message
when people run the
installer. We use
On 2/21/14, 12:34 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Note that this is a self-signed certificate, and so when you first
access it you'll get a dire warning from your browser.
At this point I'm just repeating what others
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:37:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Would that work for all the websites? I.e. digitalmars.com,
dlang.org, etc., or would it be a separate charge for each?
Any certificate is tied to domain or masked domain. Covering both
*.digitalmars.com and *.dlang.org with
On 2/21/2014 4:39 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:37:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Would that work for all the websites? I.e. digitalmars.com, dlang.org,
etc., or would it be a separate charge for each?
The one cost and you could cover everything. StartSSL is novel
This is great! Can't wait to check it out. (^_-)b
On 2/21/2014 3:57 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
For $59.90 Walter could get a class 2 organization verification for
Digital Mars and do code signing so we can get rid of that scary message
when people run the installer. We use StartSSL for our code signing and
website SSL and are happy with it.
I
On 2/21/2014 3:55 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:35:12 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:34:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Note that this is a self-signed certificate, and
On 2/21/14, 6:49 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote in message
news:op.xbm0zbffeav7ka@stevens-macbook-pro.local...
I know that Andrei is now living in the area, and he was the one who
picked Aloft. I'm assuming Andrei's house is likely not the new
location ;) Where is the hot
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:50:21 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On 2/21/2014 3:57 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
For $59.90 Walter could get a class 2 organization
verification for
Digital Mars and do code signing so we can get rid of that
scary message
when people run the installer. We use
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:44:19 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:37:39 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Would that work for all the websites? I.e. digitalmars.com,
dlang.org, etc., or would it be a separate charge for each?
Any certificate is tied to domain or masked
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 22:52:46 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:44:19 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:37:39 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Would that work for all the websites? I.e. digitalmars.com,
dlang.org, etc., or would it be a separate
On 2/21/14, 3:43 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:42:10 -0800, Dicebot pub...@dicebot.lv wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:39:28 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
It probably has to do with the fact that the NSA owns every Root
Signing Key in the world.
And how it is relevant? Not
On 2/21/14, 3:35 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:34:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Note that this is a self-signed certificate, and so when you first
access it you'll get a dire warning from your
On 2/21/14, 3:55 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:35:12 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:34:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Note that this is a self-signed certificate, and
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 22:59:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 22:52:46 UTC, Brad Anderson
wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:44:19 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:37:39 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Would that work for all the websites? I.e.
On 2/21/14, 3:40 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/21/2014 12:35 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:34:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Note that this is a self-signed certificate, and so when you first
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 14:32:00 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 14:03:35 UTC, ed wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 07:36:46 UTC, ed wrote:
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 23:42:29 UTC, Namespace
wrote:
[snip]
That's nice to hear! I would be glad if you could
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 23:26:58 UTC, ed wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 14:32:00 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 14:03:35 UTC, ed wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 07:36:46 UTC, ed wrote:
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 23:42:29 UTC, Namespace
wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 23:12:32 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
Walter's question is about whether the paid StartSSL
verification I mentioned would let him cover all of those
things for a single price (which it would). Not about whether a
single certificate could be made to cover all of
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 23:10:12 UTC, Jan Knepper wrote:
On 2/21/14, 3:40 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/21/2014 12:35 PM, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 20:34:12 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
dlang.org and dconf.org now support https,
https://dlang.org
https://dconf.org
Brad Anderson, el 21 de February a las 21:39 me escribiste:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:37:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/21/2014 12:57 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
For $59.90 Walter could get a class 2 organization verification
for Digital Mars
and do code signing so we can get rid of
Nick Sabalausky, el 21 de February a las 16:47 me escribiste:
On 2/21/2014 4:39 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:37:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Would that work for all the websites? I.e. digitalmars.com, dlang.org,
etc., or would it be a separate charge for each?
On 2/22/2014 12:09 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Nick Sabalausky, el 21 de February a las 16:47 me escribiste:
On 2/21/2014 4:39 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:37:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Would that work for all the websites? I.e. digitalmars.com, dlang.org,
On 2/21/2014 5:50 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 21:50:21 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 2/21/2014 3:57 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
For $59.90 Walter could get a class 2 organization verification for
Digital Mars and do code signing so we can get rid of that scary
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 02:34:30 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
I don't see enough benefit for making this a language feature.
foreach(i, v1, v2; tuple(0,1).repeat(10).enumerate)
writeln(i, \t, v1, \t, v2);
This works today! And once enumerate is part of Phobos it will
just
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 20:26:40 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 22:19 +, ponce wrote:
[…]
Granted code bloat is a real thing and you _might_ have
instruction cache problems, but the problem only ever show
itself
[…]
Code bloat in what sense? Go is founded on
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 05:21:53 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
I think though adding a repeating bit would make it even more
accurate so that repeating decimals within the bounds of maximum
bits used could be represented perfectly. e.g., 1/3 = 0....
could be represented perfectly with such a
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 23:43:18 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
The unum variable length encoding is very similar to how
msgpack packs integers. See msgpack-d on github for a superb
implementation in D.
msgpack-d is indeed a great library that makes serialization
almost instant to implement.
Am 20.02.2014 21:38, schrieb Jordi Sayol:
El 20/02/14 17:04, Sönke Ludwig ha escrit:
Hopefully the final release candidate has been uploaded. The new RPM package
could need some testing:
http://code.dlang.org/files/dub-0.9.21-0.rc.5.x86_64.rpm
http://code.dlang.org/download
dub rc5
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 08:03:47 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
[cut]
I have been following Ada at FOSDEM for the last years, and its
use seems to be increasing in Europe for safety critical
systems, mainly thanks to C and C++ issues.
Maybe this is an area where D could be pushed as well.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:30:42 -, Justin Whear
jus...@economicmodeling.com wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:04:55 +, w0rp wrote:
More importantly, this gets in the way of behaviour which may be
desirable later, foreach being able to unpack tuples from ranges.
I would like if it was
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 20:52:23 UTC, Xinok wrote:
The following statement prints false:
writeln(-1 uint.max);
I don't see this as a bug, this is exactly what I expect from a
language with intact C integer semantics.
This came up in another topic recently. I think this is silly
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 22:52:55 UTC, Meta wrote:
I can't think of any C code that would rely on such behaviour,
but I think it'd just be safer all-around to make it an error.
Eg this optimization:
if ((unsigned int)(a - min) (max - min)) // only one
comparison instead of two
My current thinking:
- I still think adding index to range foreach is a good idea.
- I realise that scheme #2 isn't workable.
- I still like scheme #1 over tuple expansion as it avoids all the issues
which make scheme #2 unworkable.
- enumerate is not as flexible as many people seem to
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:02:43 -, Regan Heath re...@netmail.co.nz
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:30:42 -, Justin Whear
jus...@economicmodeling.com wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:04:55 +, w0rp wrote:
More importantly, this gets in the way of behaviour which may be
desirable
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:09:31 -, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:07:32 -0500, Regan Heath re...@netmail.co.nz
wrote:
Only if the compiler prefers opApply to range methods, does it?
It should. If it doesn't, that is a bug.
The sole purpose of
http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/std.lexer
This is follow-up by Brian to his earlier proposal
(http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/std.d.lexer). This time proposed
module focuses instead on generic lexer generation as discussed
in matching voting thread.
Docs:
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 20:52:23 UTC, Xinok wrote:
Others have suggested disallowing comparing a signed type with
an
unsigned type. I think this is a better solution. Yes, it will
add a small bit of overhead, but I believe it's more important
for code to be correct than to be fast.
I
The specific problem here was when working with std.json.
std.json distinguishes between UINTEGER and INTEGER, so I had
code like
static if(is(T : ulong)) {
// must be UINTEGER
} else static if(is(T : long)) {
// can be either INTEGER or UINTEGER
}
I've since found out about
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 12:12:17 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/std.lexer
First of all, thank you for the great work. This is a very
important project.
I'll begin with reviewing the documentation.
Summary
Some simple explanation of the terminology and concepts
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 10:01:41 UTC, renoX wrote:
On Thursday, 20 February 2014 at 08:03:47 UTC, Paulo Pinto
wrote:
[cut]
I have been following Ada at FOSDEM for the last years, and
its use seems to be increasing in Europe for safety critical
systems, mainly thanks to C and C++
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 12:56:32 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
That is easy to answer, I doubt they could with their rule of
not having more than 5 characters per keyword. :)
Wait, what? REALLY? What kind of rule is that.
ahahahha... are they stuck to the 70's? :D
On Friday, February 21, 2014 12:41:07 Hannes Steffenhagen wrote:
The specific problem here was when working with std.json.
std.json distinguishes between UINTEGER and INTEGER, so I had
code like
static if(is(T : ulong)) {
// must be UINTEGER
} else static if(is(T : long)) {
//
On 20/02/2014 20:52, Xinok wrote:
Others have suggested disallowing comparing a signed type with an
unsigned type.
Yes, that solution is pre-approved:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=259
I think that's a very important bug to solve.
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 13:08:37 UTC, Francesco Cattoglio
wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 12:56:32 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
That is easy to answer, I doubt they could with their rule of
not having more than 5 characters per keyword. :)
Wait, what? REALLY? What kind of rule is
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:21:39 -0500, Regan Heath re...@netmail.co.nz
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:09:31 -, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:07:32 -0500, Regan Heath re...@netmail.co.nz
wrote:
Only if the compiler prefers opApply to range
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 17:04 +0100, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Hopefully the final release candidate has been uploaded. The new RPM
package could need some testing:
http://code.dlang.org/files/dub-0.9.21-0.rc.5.x86_64.rpm
http://code.dlang.org/download
The 64-bit Tarball for Linux works for me on
On 2/16/14, Manu turkey...@gmail.com wrote:
requiring an empty 'default: break;' line at the end is annoying and noisy.
Guys, I keep seeing this line being mentioned but you don't actually
have to type break:
-
void main()
{
int x;
switch (x)
{
case 1:
break;
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:29:37 -, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:21:39 -0500, Regan Heath re...@netmail.co.nz
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:09:31 -, Steven Schveighoffer
schvei...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:07:32 -0500, Regan
Steven Schveighoffer wrote in message
news:op.xbmyjnnzeav7ka@stevens-macbook-pro.local...
I'd rather see it do:
1. can I satisfy this foreach using opApply? If yes, do it.
2. If not, can I satisfy this foreach using range iteration?
This may be how it works, I honestly don't know.
It is.
On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 20:49:54 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
On Wednesday 19:th of Februari I'm giving my first talk on D
for my fellow collegues at my consultant firm office HiQ,
Linköping, Sweden.
If any of you are in the neighbourhood please let me know and I
will invite you. The
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 11:12:54 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
- enumerate is not as flexible as many people seem to think.
Only seeing the enumerate missing the ability to optionally add
an index, but if you aren't adding an index you don't need
enumerate.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 02:34:28
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 14:27:48 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 13:08:37 UTC, Francesco
Cattoglio wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 12:56:32 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
That is easy to answer, I doubt they could with their rule of
not having more than 5
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:35:44 -, Jesse Phillips
jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.com wrote:
You've provided 3 schemes to support this feature. This suggest there
are several right ways to bring this into the language, while you
prefer 1 someone may prefer 3.
Ignore the 3 schemes they were just
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:58:58 -0500, Daniel Murphy
yebbliesnos...@gmail.com wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote in message
news:op.xbmyjnnzeav7ka@stevens-macbook-pro.local...
I'd rather see it do:
1. can I satisfy this foreach using opApply? If yes, do it.
2. If not, can I satisfy this
On 02/21/2014 04:41 AM, Hannes Steffenhagen wrote:
The specific problem here was when working with std.json.
std.json distinguishes between UINTEGER and INTEGER, so I had code like
static if(is(T : ulong)) {
// must be UINTEGER
} else static if(is(T : long)) {
// can be either
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 12:12:17 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/std.lexer
This is follow-up by Brian to his earlier proposal
(http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/std.d.lexer). This time proposed
module focuses instead on generic lexer generation as discussed
in matching
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 10:45:50 UTC, ponce wrote:
I don't see this as a bug, this is exactly what I expect from a
language with intact C integer semantics.
I didn't call it a bug. I said that it's prone to causing bugs.
That subtly breaks C compatibility.
Personally, I wish we
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 09:04:40 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
I believe that the repeating decimals, or better, repeating
binary fractions, will hardly be more useful than a rational
representation like p/q.
Yeah, in retrospect I would say that a binary layout like:
numberator length |
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 17:25:48 UTC, Francesco Cattoglio
wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 15:57:32 UTC, Thiez wrote:
That is not true, Rust has several keywords that are more than
5 characters, such as 'continue'. The full list is here:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 14:27:48 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 13:08:37 UTC, Francesco
Cattoglio wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 12:56:32 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
That is easy to answer, I doubt they could with their rule of
not having more than 5
On 2014-02-21 18:06, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Can we please defer this by one week?
Just make the review period one week longer.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 15:57:32 UTC, Thiez wrote:
That is not true, Rust has several keywords that are more than
5 characters, such as 'continue'. The full list is here:
http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/master/rust.html#keywords . It
is true that they prefer short keywords over long
On 2/21/14, 2:12 PM, Dicebot wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/std.lexer
This is follow-up by Brian to his earlier proposal
(http://wiki.dlang.org/Review/std.d.lexer). This time proposed module
focuses instead on generic lexer generation as discussed in matching
voting thread.
Docs:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:02:43 +, Regan Heath wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:30:42 -, Justin Whear
jus...@economicmodeling.com wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 13:04:55 +, w0rp wrote:
More importantly, this gets in the way of behaviour which may be
desirable later, foreach being able
Am 21.02.2014 16:57, schrieb Thiez:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 14:27:48 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 13:08:37 UTC, Francesco Cattoglio wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 12:56:32 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
That is easy to answer, I doubt they could with their
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 07:42:36 UTC, francesco cattoglio
wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 05:21:53 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
I think though adding a repeating bit would make it even more
accurate so that repeating decimals within the bounds of
maximum
bits used could be represented
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 16:41:00 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
and make this possible too:
foreach([index, ]value; range) { }
I understand the user interface is simple, but you created 3
statements about how it could be achieved and work/not work with
the existing setup. Each have
On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 20:49:54 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
What do you think, fellow D programmers?
What are the odds of getting a color-enabled terminal output?
We could try to produce some simple ascii art :D
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 17:15:41 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2014-02-21 18:06, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Can we please defer this by one week?
Just make the review period one week longer.
This. There is no real rationale behind existing default review
period so extending it
Does this mean that you're finally getting approval to release
your lexer generator?
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 17:06:23 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Can we please defer this by one week?
Thanks,
Andrei
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 19:12:39 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
Simply not true. Maple, for example, uses constants and can
compute using constants.
You are mixing symbolic calculus and numerical computations. The
two are completely unrelated.
Basically the benefit of this(and potential)
On 21 February 2014 20:00, Tobias Pankrath tob...@pankrath.net wrote:
Depends on how often and where you write those keywords. mut seems to be
quite common and even in D I would not like 'reference' more than 'ref',
especially since it is used in parameter lists.
I think Rust's pub, priv
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 19:59:36 UTC, Francesco Cattoglio
wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 19:12:39 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
Simply not true. Maple, for example, uses constants and can
compute using constants.
You are mixing symbolic calculus and numerical computations.
The two are
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 09:04:40 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 05:21:53 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
I think though adding a repeating bit would make it even more
accurate so that repeating decimals within the bounds of
maximum
bits used could be represented
How difficult is it to port D code to future projects on
alternate platforms(mainly coming from win) and, if needed be, a
compiler for those platforms?
At this point, I'm wondering how difficult code I'm writing for
windows will be to port to, say, the iOS, mac, arm, and more
likely, embedded
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 16:06:04 UTC, NVolcz wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 20:49:54 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
On Wednesday 19:th of Februari I'm giving my first talk on D
for my fellow collegues at my consultant firm office HiQ,
Linköping, Sweden.
If any of you are in the
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
