I made some additions and corrections. The following are the major ones:
* The 'User Defined Attributes (UDA)' chapter
* @nogc
* foreach_reverse
* Formatted element output with %( and %)
* static this, static ~this, shared static this, and shared static ~this
As a reminder, the book is
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:16:14 -0700
Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
* The 'User Defined Attributes (UDA)' chapter
great!
* static this, static ~this, shared static this, and shared static
~this
and this too.
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:16:14 -0700
Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
* Formatted element output with %( and %)
by the way, i never knows about this feature. maybe i should RTFM
someday...
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 8/26/2014 5:32 PM, Mike wrote:
We currently have std.c and core.stdc. I believe core.stdc should be
migrated to std.c, not the other way around. And before we make the same
mistake with core.stdcpp, we should set a new precedent with std.cpp instead.
The irony is D1 has std.c, and for D2
eles wrote in message news:ybcxmuwwpsiyupwer...@forum.dlang.org...
The question of dupplication may be addressed now better, since the newly
fixed bug about hierarchical packaging.
I don't see how.
_only that_ should be the runtime. And the sole part that one needs to
port in order to
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 07:52:18 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
eles wrote in message
news:ybcxmuwwpsiyupwer...@forum.dlang.org...
Requiring full c/OS bindings in druntime is so useful, and it
costs us so little.
But the request is simply to split the current druntime in a
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 06:50:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/26/2014 5:32 PM, Mike wrote:
Moving it back in an endless search for taxonomical perfection
Well, keeping things in limbo for such many years (@property,
anyone?) is not going to help neither.
I agree it is a fine
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 06:50:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/26/2014 5:32 PM, Mike wrote:
We currently have std.c and core.stdc. I believe core.stdc
should be
migrated to std.c, not the other way around. And before we
make the same
mistake with core.stdcpp, we should set a new
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 02:17:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:57:38 UTC, Mike wrote:
What do you think about following compromise:
1) C bindings are defined in spec to be optional
2) They are still kept in druntime repo but declared an
implementation detail
eles wrote in message news:rixtiaiokrukvqjsf...@forum.dlang.org...
But the request is simply to split the current druntime in a
language-runtime and a phobos-runtime. The namespace and so on might even
remain the same and the existing code would run unmodified. What is really
important is
Hello all,
Binaries for beta 1 is available for download and testing. You can find
them at: http://wiki.dlang.org/Beta_Testing
Test!!! Document bugs/regressions!!! Enjoy!!!
Thanks to those who have contributed to the maintenance/upkeep of the
wiki page. As I am no a full-time student with
On 8/27/2014 2:19 PM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
Hello all,
Binaries for beta 1 is available for download and testing. You can find them at:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Beta_Testing
Test!!! Document bugs/regressions!!! Enjoy!!!
Thanks to those who have contributed to the maintenance/upkeep of the wiki
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 21:22:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/27/2014 2:19 PM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
Hello all,
Binaries for beta 1 is available for download and testing. You
can find them at:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Beta_Testing
Test!!! Document bugs/regressions!!! Enjoy!!!
Thanks
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 06:50:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/26/2014 5:32 PM, Mike wrote:
We currently have std.c and core.stdc. I believe core.stdc
should be
migrated to std.c, not the other way around. And before we
make the same
mistake with core.stdcpp, we should set a new
On 8/27/2014 2:27 PM, Dicebot wrote:
Let's get them reviewed/pulled and do a 2.066 point release.
Very true but this does not conflict with 2.067 cycle (other than competing for
attention of compiler developers)
You're right, somehow I misread 2.067 as 2.066. My mistake.
Does this 2.67 release contain COFF32, and the new package fix?
On 28 August 2014 07:45, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On 8/27/2014 2:27 PM, Dicebot wrote:
Let's get them reviewed/pulled and do a 2.066 point release.
Very true but
16 matches
Mail list logo
