this code: std.conv.parse!byte(-128) throws error: Overflow in
integral conversion. but this is obviously not true, as signed
byte can hold such value.
the question is: is it bug, or it's intended behavior to limit
signed integrals to values which can be safely abs()ed?
ah, sorry, this is my own fault, there is no bug in parser. what
i'm doing is parse!byte(128) and then negating the result.
silly me.
On Sunday, 27 April 2014 at 00:04:15 UTC, ketmar wrote:
but this is definetely bug, i think:
void main() {
import std.stdio : writeln;
import std.conv : to;
writeln(to!int(29a, 16)); // 666
writeln(to!int(+29a, 16)); // Unexpected '+' when converting
from type string base 16 to type int
ah, i see: if (radix == 10) return parse!Target(s); in Target
parse(Target, Source)(ref Source s, uint radix)
it cheating a little and using 'general' decimal number parser,
which accepts '+' and '-'. for other bases it uses another code
though, where '+' and '-' threats as digits, which
On Wednesday, 9 April 2014 at 14:59:35 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
E.g. it could look like this (alternative a new keyword
explicit could be introduced, but introduction of new
keywords is usually avoided if possible, AFAIK):
sorry for not reading the whole post and necroposting, but
please,
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:55:11 -0400
Etienne via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
That's funny b/c most people say RoR made them love web development.
If the D community could organize itself the same way RoR is around
web dev, I doubt any other web scripting language could
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:41:17 +
James via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
just show him vibe.d. it's what node.js wants to be, but failed. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:23:19 +0100
Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Google definitely try to push Go :-)
so you mean that Go can't walk on it's own and needs to be constantly
pushed by Google so other people will think that it's alive? heh.
signature.asc
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 07:04:41 +
Andrew Godfrey via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Jonathan is right. what this PR does is changing one (somewhat
confusing) terminology to another, even more confusing one.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:57:47 +
Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Honestly Go looks like an _interesting_ language
i'm agree. it just don't fit for me.
but I already love D and want it over C++.
same for me too. back in D1 times i was not really impressed.
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:57:50 -0700
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
seems that such deprecations hits even rdmd: trying to compile it now
spits two warnings about std.algorithm.splitter cannot be iterated
backwards.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 17:30:42 -0700
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
One possible hack is to make is(typeof(...)) return true for
deprecated symbols if compiling with -d, but that would mean changing
language semantics with compiler flags, which Walter frowns on.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:18:26 +
Meta via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
What about modifying is(typeof(...)) to return false for
deprecated symbols?
btw, we can add 'date' arg do deprecated(), so compiler will spit
warnings before that date and rejects deprecated code
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:05:26 +0200
Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Use the literal search instead, which disables synonyms:
sorry, i somehow missed that line. mea culpa.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:05:26 +0200
Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
https://www.google.de/search?tbs=li%3A1q=dlang+golang+range+OR+ranges+OR+slice+OR+slices
there is no need to specify plural forms, engine is clever enough.
besides, many (if not all) sites using
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 12:34:28 +
Chris via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
But you can start to program in standard C99 and be sure that in
99% of all cases it will compile and work.
only if the author reads the standard. does average C programmer knows
the standard and all
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:27:34 +
Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Both sides of the are identical.
it's to REALLY check the flag! ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 21:08:08 +
Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I still think that we'd be far better off if all attributes which
could apply to a function's return type were illegal on the
left-hand side of the function.
i completely agree. even if
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 19:46:07 +
Sergey Kozyr via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Let's open doc http://dlang.org/statement#CaseStatement
and we'll find some more bugs there:
CaseStatement:
case ArgumentList : ScopeStatementList
ArgumentList:
AssignExpression
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 01:31:42 +0200
Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
What is the problem? This passes DMD's parser.
that is the problem: it shouldn't. this has no sense, and it's easy to
fix this in grammar itself.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 02:20:27 +0200
Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
What is the problem? This passes DMD's parser.
that is the problem: it shouldn't.
That's not what you said.
that's what i mean. ok, i should write it clear.
There is nothing to be 'fixed'.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 12:23:49 -0700
Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Yes, and for this case it is not worth it.
it worth it. we can fix alot of such things while our userbase is
relatively small. we will be doomed to live with this legacy when
userbase becomes
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 06:46:40 +
Andrew Godfrey via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
sorry for the late answer.
Don't think I'm being flippant, but I have trouble interpreting
such feedback, because D's dynamic array semantics ARE
complicated.
and it will be even more
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 10:32:51 +0300
ketmar via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
sorry, i meant THIS code:
void foo (int[] a) {
a ~= 42;
}
...
int[] arr;
arr ~= 666;
foo(arr);
assert(arr.length == 2 arr[1] == 42);
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 22:12:06 +
Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
ah! you stole my money! ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 23:56:54 +
Tyler Jensen via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
try to catch and process exceptions where they may arose. any file
operation can throw exception (yes, even innocent-looking writeln(),
let alone 'auto fl = File(...)').
also, you don't need to
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 19:43:13 +
maik klein via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
My initial question was why D uses the GC for everything.
to avoid unnecessary complications in user source code. GC is necessary
for some cool D features (it was noted ealier), and GC is
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 07:14:17 +
ponce via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I work in such an environment and I tend to agree with you.
just replace GC with stub doing only allocs (or use GC.disable) and
manage resource freeing manually (or with corresponding templated
struct
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 10:24:07 +
ponce via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
seems that i misunderstand you. sorry.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 07:13:45 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
One issue with this is e.g. hashtables have no primitive for freeing
entries.
ah, so don't use built-in AAs. templated class/struct can replace 'em,
let with less beauty in declaration.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:13:27 +
bachmeier via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Java or .NET programmer looking at the language. Java devs
complain about Scala. I can't imagine what they'd say about Rust.
Java devs can speak?! O_O
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:28:25 +
Peter Alexander via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
The rule in the spec is The lexically first ReturnStatement
determines the ref-ness of [an auto ref] function
Why is this? I think it would be more consistent and convenient
to be: An
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 23:58:57 +
Andrew Godfrey via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
In either case, we are passing a reference by value.
yes. but passing null class will not allow to call it's methods, and
passing null array will. i.e.
auto foo (MyClass a) { return
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:05:04 +
Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
i think that it's time to kill both c-like array declarations and
old-style aliases w/o '=' (ok, let 'alias this' live for now). this
will solve all problems.
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:01:05 +
blake kim via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
fill bugreport, please. and submit PR if you can.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:44:40 +
Peter Alexander via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Well, the return type is already the common type of all return
paths
no, it's not. the return type will be taken from the first return
statement in code.
That doesn't help at all. I want
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 15:08:48 +
Peter Alexander via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
auto foo() {
if (1) return 1;
return 2.0;
}
This returns double. Try for yourself.
i wasn't talking about integer promotions, but yes, it works here. and
i'm sure that is shouldn't
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:34:40 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
No, the type of (cond ? x : 42) is always `int`, the `ref`
already gets lost inside the ternary operator. So in this case,
it behaves correctly.
it's slightly counterintuitive. yes, this is correct, but D
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:24:29 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
What would `cast(int)` do in this case?
just clarifying the intentions. remember that programs are written for
humans in the first place, and programs should be easy to read for
humans. it's not so hard to
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 03:24:35 +
Andrew Godfrey via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
maybe just call that slice views? ;-)
really, uncommon term will (at least it should ;-) make user to read
about that slice views, and reference is something like ah, i know
what references is,
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 06:53:32 +0300
ketmar via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
offtopic: damn it! i will read my messages before posting. i will read
my messages before posting. i will read my messages before posting. i
will... who i'm trying to cheat?! too bad that we can't edit
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 06:35:53 +
Joakim via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
i believe that all code that using STL/Boost will not be translated
(and this is the majority of C++ code, i think). and only very-very
primitive templates can be translated automatically.
so maybe i'm
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 07:23:34 +
Andrew Godfrey via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
slice view sounds odd
i agree, i just took the first words that came into my head. ;-)
Maybe I should have another look at that - maybe introducing
slice first and the slice operator later,
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:09:37 +
Dicebot via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
It probably looks good as a landing page for a newcomers but I
will annoyed with extra forced navigation very quick through
daily usage of the web site. It sacrifices productivity in favor
of
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:27:46 +
MacAsm via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Any thoughts? I don't know if I'm missing something but two
functions (and not methods) with same name is very bad.
they doing much the same, but for different character sets. two
different names
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:12:37 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Don't forget that programmers are hipsters, and we need to take
care of our image.
i'm glad that i'm not a programmer then.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 08:29:52 +
David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Hence the name magicport?
magic is not easy, contrary to widespread beliefs. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 02:23:25 +
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I haven't played with your code yet, so I may be asking for
somethign that already exists, but did you had a look to jsvar by
Adam ?
jsvar using opDispatch, and Sönke wrote:
- No opDispatch()
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:46:44 +
bearophile via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
What better alternative do you suggest in practice?
don't declare unused variables. really, this is extremely easy. my 15+
years of expirience in writing projects of different scale shows that
good
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:50:13 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
- versioning
refactor it, so that shared code goes to separate functions. nested
functions especially helpful here. i'm used to this GCC extension.
- debugging (commenting out debugging code)
why comment it
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:48:03 +
Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
How about unused arguments in lambda expressions?
also, make compiler accept 'auto' in lambdas. i'm sure it should. and
it should accept 'auto' in foreach(). it should also allow foreach like
this:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 04:31:55 +
Scott Wilson via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
there is NO support for instantiating C++ templates in D code. and you
can't write C++ template specialization code in D.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 05:15:14 +
Scott Wilson via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
The D code is not instantiating (but I may be wrong).
sorry, it was my fault. i somehow misread your code.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 18:28:51 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
and D parser unconditionally assumes that source code is in UTF-8 too.
which makes great PITA for me: i can't use strings (any string-like
literals, actually) in Latin-1 (for example) without ugly
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:39:31 +
Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Currenly foreach does not accept type-without-argument -
`foreach(int; [1,2,3])` is a compiler error - so that's much
bigger a change than adding argument-less type inference for
lambdas.
ah,
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 23:15:53 -0400
Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Or even if not, at the very least it would get people to knock it off
with the appeal-to-authority language selection arguments ;)
yeah, sometimes but look at FB! they using D and hired it's
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 01:23:57 +0400
Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Just make a function that translates UTF-8 into Latin-1, use ubyte
for Latin-1.
i don't want ubytes. but there is nothing bad with assigning latin-1
text to ordinary string after conversion.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:18:50 +
Brost via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
for example how do you correctly expose a given D data structure
to a scripting language of your choice ?
using LuaD, for example: http://jakobovrum.github.io/LuaD/
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:18:50 +
Brost via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
for example how do you correctly expose a given D data structure
to a scripting language of your choice ?
or Adam D. Ruppe's script, which is written completely in D:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 13:51:22 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
discontinued). I wonder how safe it would be to use Go in
production (breaking changes, availability / implementation of
useful features etc.)
Pretty safe!
While Go and PhP can be dropped by Gogle
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:51:23 +0300
Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Since when does C++ does support message passing?
since people started to think that OOP was invented in C++.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:07:53 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
It is. You can use Go on Compute Engine.
i can use D in production. i'm pretty sure that current GDC will not
rot after five years: i will stil be able to build gcc 4.9.1 and gdc
with 2.065 backend, then fix
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:15:09 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
C++ is using the OOP model of SIMULA, which did invent OOP! So
I'd say the way C++ does OOP is how it was invented.
and Smalltalk does OOP the way it should be done. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:41:46 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
D does seem to lack type variables? So it is quite static in
comparison.
the problem with overly dynamic languages like Smalltalk (and
especially Self) is that it's insanely hard to write an efficient
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:08:52 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Beta was static and compiled directly to asm.
it's not hard to compile dynamic language to native code. what is hard
is to make this code fast. this requires very sofisticated compiler
which can eliminate as
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:33:00 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I think the whole separate compilation idea is going to be old
fashioned real soon now. It makes little sense to not have the
build system as a service run on a cluster and the program as a
database
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:36:21 -0300
Ary Borenszweig via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
The trick is to not use virtual tables, but do multiple dispatch (or
only use virtual tables when needed). If you have:
a = Foo.new
a.some_method
such simple code analysis easily
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:50:35 +
Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
May be, but JIT were created thanks to Lisp and Smalltalk.
i know that. i'm interested in JIT developement and know about Self,
Strongtalk and other strange words. ;-)
and i really hate SUN for
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:26:59 +
Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Why are comments and non quoted key names needed?
'cause people are not computers. let's think about people first.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:59:45 +
Joakim via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Other than a few devs with privacy and security concerns
it's about me. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:53:44 +
eles via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
- XML is XML. I find it actually OK.
I would support this. Yes, is verbose, we know that. But is a
very solid foundation.
any homemade format or character soup is better than XML. it's not only
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 09:32:09 +
eles via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Are the drawbacks of JSON so big? Why to move away from it
i don't know too. i think that it's enough to add three features to
current json parser to be happy:
1. comments, both '//' and '/* */.
2.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:20:55 +0200
Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I agree. Those would be the points with most impacts. However, the
outcome would be quite far away from standard JSON, so we would
really be talking about something like ASON or SDL already.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:36:14 +
eles via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Not exactly that, but look here two approaches for introducing
comments in standard JSON:
they both 'hacks'. and i'm pretty sure that most people who using JSON
never bother to read specs, they just
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 22:37:29 +0300
Max Klyga via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Microsoft being microsoft again.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0196015.html - DECLARATION OF
LIFETIME OF RESOURCE REFERENCE
This contains description of scoped classes, etc.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:57:52 +
Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
D and its tools are crying out for stability right now.
there is D1. stable as a doornail.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:12:15 +
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
It forces all the load to potentially have side effects, which,
in turn, limit dramatically what the optimizer can do.
but there is alot code that doesn't need super-speed. it's ok to
fallback to
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:12:15 +
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
p.s. code generated by DMD, for example, at least two times slower than
code generated by GDC. but most people are ok with it.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 05:31:00 +
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
If the value in unspecified, rather than the behavior undefined,
it means that no load or store can be optimized away or
reordered, unless the compiler can prove that is won't fault.
will it
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:21:04 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
Dear community, are you ready for this?
yes, yes and yes!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:49:07 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
yes, yes and yes!
You forgot the Oxford comma :o). -- Andrei
yes, yes, and yes!
fixed, ready to another round of reviews. ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello.
there are some c-style array declarations both in druntime and in
phobos. i made two patches that fixes 'em:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13401
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13402
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:31:13 +
Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
If you want to contribute, please create pull requests on github:
sorry, i'm not using github and not planning to register on github
either. i have a personal reason for it.
It's doubtful
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 22:25:18 +1000
Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
That's your choice, but if you want to contribute patches to the
compiler or libraries you will need to get over it and make an
account.
not *that* much. ok, i got the point and will not make
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:09:02 +1000
Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I'm yet to hear an actual reason why taking the 5 minutes to create a
github account is too hard.
'cause i don't want to be a part of github. i'd better eat dirt.
signature.asc
Description:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:32:06 +1000
Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
or just not submitting patches. keep complaining about alot of people
speaking but not writing the code. good luck with it but i'm off. i'm
perfectly comfortable with supporting patches by myself
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:38:16 +1000
Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
It's a shame that your dislike of github is stronger than your desire
to contribute code.
i wasn't signed any agreements about i have to eat github if i want
make D better. i was thinking that
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:50:58 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I hope you keep making your patches available online. I am
interested in your patches that fix the syntax issues that D
suffer from. I am sure others are too.
i'm planning to make website with my patches
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:33:12 +
David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Even though everything submitted to Bugzilla is supposed to be
public domain, it would be nice to keep authorship information in
the commit messages.
in my case -- i don't care. i just
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 17:47:47 +0100
Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Is gdmd an ex-thing?
it is now in it's own repository:
https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDMD.git
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:20:42 +0100
Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I had hoped that someone would rewrite it in D, and a start
was made, but never completed (I never saw a PR).
funny thing is that i made the exact opposite: wrote kdmd which
translates dmd args
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 01:53:07 -0400
Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
I know FSF prefers free over the open I've been using. But
really, everybody knows what open and open source mean
may i ask you: is DMD open and open source? and why the heck i
can't fork it
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:20:04 +0100
Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
That isn't the opposite. That's what gdmd does. Unless you mean
translate gdc args to dmd. :)
sorry, i must sleep more. ;-)
sure, gdc-dmd conversion, to build my projects with dmd (i'm not
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 06:59:34 +
Era Scarecrow via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
'Open' can merely means you can see the source, nothing else.
Really comes down to the license it's attached to.
that's why i'm using the term Free and Open Source Software instead
of Open
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:23:24 +
Joakim via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
As such, his GPL, which doesn't allow such
pragmatic mixing of open and closed source, is
...a great thing to stop invasion of proprietary software. hey, i'm not
*renting* my smartphone, i'm *buying*
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 10:23:42 +
Joakim via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Good luck with that, let me know when you find a GPLv3 smartphone
to buy. I'll predict when that'll happen: never.
keep tolerate permissive licenses, this will greatly help me to find
such
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 06:46:15 -0400
Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
So what do they do? Not use the GPL software in the first place. So
we end up with second-rate crap (like Bionic) or worse - closed
source proprietary - just because GPL scared them away.
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 20:43:23 +
Joakim via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
This is what guys like Stallman or ketmar don't seem to get, that
mixed-source still leads to _more_ open source
which was used to produce vendor-locked smartphone. bwah, what's good
in this open
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 20:36:59 +
monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 13:47:42 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
What do you guys think?
I'd say add trusted to those function names:
trustedCall
trustedAddrOf
i first think like this
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 04:00:46 -0400
Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Yea, a vendor-locked smartphone that still gives you far more
freedoms than iOS or WinRT ever will.
partially pregnant.
Go put your software and OS mods on an iPhone or WinRT and *then* try
1 - 100 of 3410 matches
Mail list logo
