On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 11:04:33 UTC, rjframe wrote:
Many people seem to leave the module statement out of their
main.d/app.d files; I think it's a way to say "this is the main
thing - don't import it from somewhere else." Basically, it's
easier to act like that code isn't in a module t
On 04/11/2017 6:13 PM, bauss wrote:
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 13:27:29 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 04/11/2017 2:14 PM, jmh530 wrote:
[...]
Okay so:
A signature when it is initiated is aware of the implementation it is
referencing. Allowing it to change how it behaves for compatibi
On 04.11.2017 10:12, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 13:59:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I'm very much of the opinion that proper unit tests pretty much
eliminate the need for out contracts.
I think that sqrt example is just bad.
It is indeed bad, because it is buggy.
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 16:57:50 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 15:27:39 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
No, Jonathan is correct. The postcondition should be able to
access values as they were stated in the precondition.
Yes, they should be able to access val
On 6/25/2017 9:31 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
It happens for template functions, member functions of templated
aggregates (structs/classes), and auto functions.
And all function literals, and all functions generated by the compiler (such as
lazy delegates and aggregate destructors).
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 15:38:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Saturday, November 04, 2017 15:27:39 Ola Fosheim Grøstad via
Digitalmars- d wrote:
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 14:12:08 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 13:59:39 UTC, Jonathan M
> Davis
>
>
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 06:08:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
And even if you did have access to the input, some functions
consume their input without any way to save it (e.g. an input
range that isn't a forward range)
[...]
- Jonathan M Davis
True. I had (strongly) pure functions i
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 13:27:29 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
On 04/11/2017 2:14 PM, jmh530 wrote:
[...]
Okay so:
A signature when it is initiated is aware of the implementation
it is referencing. Allowing it to change how it behaves for
compatibility reasons.
An interface is desi
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 15:27:39 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
No, Jonathan is correct. The postcondition should be able to
access values as they were stated in the precondition.
Yes, they should be able to access values, but D's limitations on
this doesn't make them useless or repla
On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 09:38:42AM -0600, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Saturday, November 04, 2017 15:27:39 Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-
> d wrote:
> > On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 14:12:08 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 13:59:39 UTC, J
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 15:38:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
In principle, that would be nice, but in practice, it's not
really feasible. In the general case, there's no way to save
the state of the parameter at the beginning of the function
call (you could with some types, but for man
On Saturday, November 04, 2017 15:27:39 Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-
d wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 14:12:08 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> > On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 13:59:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> >
> > wrote:
> >> I'm very much of the opinion that proper unit tests prett
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 14:12:08 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 13:59:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I'm very much of the opinion that proper unit tests pretty
much eliminate the need for out contracts.
I think that sqrt example is just bad. Out contracts sh
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 13:59:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I'm very much of the opinion that proper unit tests pretty much
eliminate the need for out contracts.
I think that sqrt example is just bad. Out contracts shouldn't be
testing specific values, but rather ranges or nullness o
On Saturday, November 04, 2017 13:02:45 Nick Treleaven via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 06:08:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > Heck, take a really simply one like sqrt. All you have to check
> > in the out contract is the return value. You have no idea what
> > was
On 04/11/2017 2:14 PM, jmh530 wrote:
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 12:20:37 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
Like signatures which I'm working on!
https://github.com/rikkimax/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1xxx-RC.md
The first example kind of reminds me of what I was trying to do with
isSubTypeOf [
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 12:20:37 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
Like signatures which I'm working on!
https://github.com/rikkimax/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1xxx-RC.md
The first example kind of reminds me of what I was trying to do
with isSubTypeOf [1]. If you know that any function you
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 06:08:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Heck, take a really simply one like sqrt. All you have to check
in the out contract is the return value. You have no idea what
was passed in. So, how would you write an out contract
verifying that you got the correct number?
On 04/11/2017 1:16 PM, Eljay wrote:
On Monday, 26 June 2017 at 00:38:21 UTC, Mike wrote:
IMO, part of the problem is that D has the wrong defaults (e.g.
`immutable` by default, `@safe` by default, `final` by default,
etc...), so users have to opt in to these things when they should
really only
On Monday, 26 June 2017 at 00:38:21 UTC, Mike wrote:
IMO, part of the problem is that D has the wrong defaults (e.g.
`immutable` by default, `@safe` by default, `final` by default,
etc...), so users have to opt in to these things when they
should really only be opting out of them. Unfortunatel
On 04.11.2017 12:16, Andre Pany wrote:
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 09:39:02 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
On 03.11.2017 21:51, Andre Pany wrote:
On Friday, 3 November 2017 at 11:52:10 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
[...]
I have an idea which solves several problems.
Current state:
The dmd win
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 09:39:02 UTC, Rainer Schuetze
wrote:
On 03.11.2017 21:51, Andre Pany wrote:
On Friday, 3 November 2017 at 11:52:10 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
[...]
I have an idea which solves several problems.
Current state:
The dmd windows archive has a folder "bin" with a 32
On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 09:51:12 +, codephantom wrote:
>> It might also make sense, that if a source code file does not contain a
>> module statement, then it should not be treated as a module, and the
>> compiler should look to the import statements instead of implicitly
>> making in a module.
>>
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 08:46:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Well, the modules need names. So, either, the compiler is going
to have to pick a name for you, or you're going to have to give
it one.
ok..just one more ... I can't help myself..
I know that D does not have a 'global names
On Saturday, November 04, 2017 09:34:05 codephantom via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 08:46:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > Well, the modules need names. So, either, the compiler is going
> > to have to pick a name for you, or you're going to have to give
> > it one
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 09:34:05 UTC, codephantom wrote:
Yes. All that makes complete sense I guess.
It might also make sense, that if a source code file does not
contain a module statement, then it should not be treated as a
module, and the compiler should look to the import statement
On 03.11.2017 21:51, Andre Pany wrote:
On Friday, 3 November 2017 at 11:52:10 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
Hi,
Visual Studio has a batch file which sets all needed environment
variables for the Microsoft linker (LIB environment variables points
to all necessary folders). Even the folder containin
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 08:46:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Well, the modules need names. So, either, the compiler is going
to have to pick a name for you, or you're going to have to give
it one. In general though, D was designed with the idea that
modules would match files and packag
On 04.11.2017 09:30, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/3/2017 5:29 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
Note that dmd still runs on Windows XP, though it is not officially
supported. You just need to be careful about using TLS variables on
it :-(
to avoid spreading this false information: TLS in D works in
d
On Saturday, November 04, 2017 01:30:12 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 11/3/2017 5:29 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
> >> Note that dmd still runs on Windows XP, though it is not officially
> >> supported. You just need to be careful about using TLS variables on it
> >> :-(
> >
> > to avo
On Saturday, November 04, 2017 08:38:58 codephantom via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 08:17:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > Per the spec, if you don't give a module declaration, the name
> > of the module is the name of the file (minus the extension).
> > So, if you
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 08:17:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Per the spec, if you don't give a module declaration, the name
of the module is the name of the file (minus the extension).
So, if you just give a module name (which you generally would
in any real program rather than a quick
On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 01:16:32 UTC, solidstate1991
wrote:
After I started to alter my graphics engine to use the multiple
kinds of bitmaps (now using multiple language features, like
templates and aliases) on one layer, I noticed that type
detection of bitmap objects would be easier
On 11/3/2017 5:29 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
Note that dmd still runs on Windows XP, though it is not officially supported.
You just need to be careful about using TLS variables on it :-(
to avoid spreading this false information: TLS in D works in dynamically loaded
DLLs on WinXP since 2010.
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 02:33:35 UTC, Computermatronic
wrote:
On Friday, 3 November 2017 at 18:26:54 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Friday, 3 November 2017 at 18:08:54 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Friday, 3 November 2017 at 17:25:26 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Most programmers will one day be coding on m
On Saturday, November 04, 2017 08:02:38 codephantom via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 03:19:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > So, that implies that you're doing something funny, but if
> > you're installing dmd with an installer or package manager,
> > then I would th
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 at 03:19:00 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
So, that implies that you're doing something funny, but if
you're installing dmd with an installer or package manager,
then I would think that it would at least be set up correctly.
ok. I worked it out.
my file was named: t
37 matches
Mail list logo
