On Thursday, 20 August 2015 at 16:22:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I really don't mind NaN.
Well with silent NaN you have 'x == x' is false which means all
the generic algorithms (silently) fail.
It really doesn't cause problems normally. The problem with
floating point values is
On 19/08/15 15:01, Kagamin wrote:
Just switch your editor to RTL mode, haha.
OT: (so this is an off topic reply to an off topic thread)
I actually tried to write a good RTL text editor (you can see the half
baked result at http://bidiedit.lingnu.com). I know your comment was
meant as a
On Friday, 21 August 2015 at 19:58:04 UTC, Tobias Müller wrote:
Chris wend...@tcd.ie wrote:
[...]
As if most people were too stpid to grasp the concept that
`x++` is
the same as `x += 1` (which is intellectually as 'challenging'
as `x++`, by the way).
Because it's not.
++x is the same
On Sunday, 23 August 2015 at 02:39:03 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/19/2015 5:00 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Classes are reference types in C# as well.
This is hardly innovation. C# took that feature from Java, and
it's likely much, much older than that.
Without looking it up, I would have
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 10:25:11PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 8/22/2015 8:32 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
People who are more than casually interested in computers should
have at least some idea of what the underlying hardware is like.
Otherwise
On 8/22/2015 8:32 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
People who are more than casually interested in computers should
have at least some idea of what the underlying hardware is like.
Otherwise the programs they write will be pretty weird.
-- D. Knuth
A good
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 08:19:26PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 8/21/2015 3:59 AM, Chris wrote:
The whole article, imo, is like saying that when dealing with
programming there are problems, difficulties and outright
contradictions (like in maths or any other logical system
On 8/19/2015 5:00 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Classes are reference types in C# as well.
This is hardly innovation. C# took that feature from Java, and it's likely much,
much older than that.
On 8/21/2015 3:59 AM, Chris wrote:
The whole article, imo, is like saying that when dealing with programming there
are problems, difficulties and outright contradictions (like in maths or any
other logical system the human mind has come up with), but language designers
should make all these evil
On Thursday, 20 August 2015 at 21:16:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/19/2015 3:09 AM, Chris wrote:
#3 Here we go again... I wonder what's the problem with this.
I still think it's
a very handy shorthand for cumbersome `x = x + 1` or even `x
+= 1`. And no, it's
not confusing, because it is
Chris wend...@tcd.ie wrote:
[...]
As if most people were too stpid to grasp the concept that `x++` is
the same as `x += 1` (which is intellectually as 'challenging' as `x++`, by
the way).
Because it's not.
++x is the same as x+=1, not x++.
Tobi
On 2015-08-20 23:06, Walter Bright wrote:
As I recall, I posted a survey of syntax from maybe a dozen languages,
and the community picked the one they liked the best.
Yeah, I remember that for the lambda syntax. Not sure about when the
delegate syntax was introduced. That was present when I
On Thursday, 20 August 2015 at 16:44:44 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:22:20PM +, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
I really don't mind NaN. It really doesn't cause problems
normally. The problem with floating point values is floating
point values
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:56:15PM +, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Thursday, 20 August 2015 at 16:44:44 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:22:20PM +, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
I really don't mind NaN. It really doesn't cause
On 8/19/2015 12:40 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
D copied it from C#.
As I recall, I posted a survey of syntax from maybe a dozen languages, and the
community picked the one they liked the best.
On 8/20/2015 7:52 AM, renoX wrote:
No IMHO, it's not really the fault of floating point numbers, it's the languages
fault: gloating point standard contain the 'signaling NaN',
It has nothing to do with signalling nan, it has to do with nan.
On 8/19/2015 1:47 AM, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com wrote:
I see your point, but it isn't so clear cut. When you are doing a high level
APIs, like an ORM you might want to enforce having a field on the left and a
number on the right and return a query
On 8/19/2015 3:09 AM, Chris wrote:
#3 Here we go again... I wonder what's the problem with this. I still think it's
a very handy shorthand for cumbersome `x = x + 1` or even `x += 1`. And no, it's
not confusing, because it is well defined as incrementing the value by 1. In
fact, I don't like
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 14:01:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Yeah. I guess that the floating point stuff doesn't quite work
that way thanks to NaN. *sigh* I hate floating point numbers.
Sometimes, you have no choice other than using them, but man
are they annoying.
- Jonathan M
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:22:20PM +, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[...]
I really don't mind NaN. It really doesn't cause problems normally.
The problem with floating point values is floating point values
themselves. They're so painfully inexact. Even without NaN, you can't
On Thursday, 20 August 2015 at 14:52:53 UTC, renoX wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 14:01:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Yeah. I guess that the floating point stuff doesn't quite work
that way thanks to NaN. *sigh* I hate floating point numbers.
Sometimes, you have no choice other than
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 10:09:33 UTC, Chris wrote:
Well, maybe that's exactly what the designers of C did, they
didn't slavishly follow the convention that the result of the
computation is notated to the right. Maybe they thought, 'Uh,
actually, wouldn't it be handier to see
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 13:02:50 UTC, Chris wrote:
Yes, I forgot, it does. But why not `x++`? I never understood
why. As if most people were too stpid to grasp the concept
that `x++` is the same as `x += 1` (which is intellectually as
'challenging' as `x++`, by the way).
I don't
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 11:42:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Has the argument that tpye-to-the-right is easier for
beginners has ever been proven?
It is much easier to read when you have longer types. Old
languages tended to have not so long types (libraries and
programs were
On 08/19/2015 09:40 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But I do think that that whole deal about partial ordering is just
bizarre. If == is true, = and = should always be true and vice versa.
Similarly, if any of them are false, all three of them should be false.
If you want to do something else, then
On 08/19/2015 04:04 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 01:12:33AM +, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I just saw this link come by my desktop and I thought it was an
interesting read because D does a lot of these things too, and avoids
some of them:
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 12:01:35 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/19/2015 09:40 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
But I do think that that whole deal about partial ordering is
just
bizarre. If == is true, = and = should always be true and
vice versa.
Similarly, if any of them are false, all
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 11:42:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 10:09:33 UTC, Chris wrote:
Well, maybe that's exactly what the designers of C did, they
didn't slavishly follow the convention that the result of the
computation is notated to the right.
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 12:03:08 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/19/2015 02:01 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/19/2015 09:40 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If == is true, = and = should always be true and vice versa.
Similarly, if any of them are false, all three of them should
be false.
On 08/19/2015 02:01 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 08/19/2015 09:40 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If == is true, = and = should always be true and vice versa.
Similarly, if any of them are false, all three of them should be false.
Missed this. No, that is not how it should work, but I guess it's
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 12:01:41 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Just switch your editor to RTL mode, haha.
Indeed. Except the variable name is caught in the middle of the
type and the assignment.
I've started to carefully align my variable names at ~ row 40 in
my C++ code.
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 12:32:32 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 12:01:41 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
Just switch your editor to RTL mode, haha.
Indeed. Except the variable name is caught in the middle of the
type and the assignment.
Well, if you have three
Dne 19.8.2015 v 3:12 Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
I just saw this link come by my desktop and I thought it was an
interesting read because D does a lot of these things too, and avoids
some of them:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2425867
I don't agree they
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 01:12:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I just saw this link come by my desktop and I thought it was an
interesting read because D does a lot of these things too, and
avoids some of them:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2425867
I don't agree they
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 01:12:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I just saw this link come by my desktop and I thought it was an
interesting read because D does a lot of these things too, and
avoids some of them:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2425867
I don't agree they
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 02:08:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
The point about the empty statement (#10) is interesting...
never really
thought about it before.
I think that D pretty much solved this by enforcing {} for if
statements and loops. so, it's not particularly error-prone in D,
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 02:08:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
#9 is something that D (almost) gets right: it's generally a
bad idea to make , =, ==, , = individually overloadable
(ahem, C++), 'cos it's a lot of redundant typing (lots of room
for typos and bugs) and most combinations don't
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 01:12:33AM +, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
I just saw this link come by my desktop and I thought it was an
interesting read because D does a lot of these things too, and avoids
some of them:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2425867
I
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 01:12:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I just saw this link come by my desktop and I thought it was an
interesting read because D does a lot of these things too, and
avoids some of them:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2425867
I don't agree they
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 at 02:08:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
#8: ah, the good ole controversial bitshift operators... esp.
the still unresolved controversy surrounding the behaviour of
vs. (sorry, forgot the bug number, but it's in
bugzilla). IMO, we should ditch these operators and use
I just saw this link come by my desktop and I thought it was an
interesting read because D does a lot of these things too, and
avoids some of them:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2425867
I don't agree they are all mistakes, but it is a pretty quick and
interesting read.
On 8/18/2015 7:04 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
The point about the empty statement (#10) is interesting... never really
thought about it before.
D doesn't allow while(e);{s}
42 matches
Mail list logo
