Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

On Thursday, 31 December 2015 at 02:40:17 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I agree and I'm sorry we're not moving faster with reviews, but really that's not ddo(c|x)'s fault. Any chance you can respond to this question that I posted two days ago?

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

On 12/30/2015 06:05 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: the difference is this time, I have my own fork so the community doesn't have to lose out. All I want is to make sure you know your reasons and assumptions. The assumption there isn't a Phobos documentation with item-per-page was wrong. It seems

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

On 12/30/2015 08:32 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: ~2010: I had just written this awesome dom.d library and wanted to document it and release it to the world. I write stuff like: /// Returns the text in the element. For example, innerText of foo is "foo" (without quotes) string innerText(); And it

Re: DLanguage IntelliJ plugin released

On Monday, 28 December 2015 at 19:23:17 UTC, Kingsley wrote: On Friday, 25 December 2015 at 17:43:06 UTC, Kingsley wrote: On Friday, 25 December 2015 at 16:55:32 UTC, Bogdan wrote: On Friday, 25 December 2015 at 15:28:23 UTC, Pradeep Gowda wrote: On Friday, 25 December 2015 at 15:04:42 UTC,

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

BTW wouldn't it be great if the compiler's error messages showed each level of pass/fail for those constraints? For the docs, I don't mind doing a few special case, hand written things, but the compiler needs something a bit more generic. I think the way to code that is whenever the compiler

Re: pl0stuff an optimizing pl0 > c transcompiler

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 at 22:13:44 UTC, Nick B wrote: So the best approach, if I understand you correctly, would be to perform micro-benchmarks on new code that is either D code (with a variety of algorithms and/or vibe.d framework code) or HHVM 64 bit code, and compare (and publish)

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 16:41:51 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: BTW wouldn't it be great if the compiler's error messages showed each level of pass/fail for those constraints? For the docs, I don't mind doing a few special case, hand written things, but the compiler needs something a bit

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 15:51:23 UTC, default0 wrote: Yeah, I misinterpreted the "E : " to mean "E is or inherits from ", rechecking the argument deduction rules for templates I think this instead means "E should be deduced as ". Sort of.. it means "if E can be implicitly converted

Re: Implementing a Programming Language in D: Lexical Analysis

On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 14:41:38 UTC, burjui wrote: On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 at 05:57:34 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: [...] Even more than that, I would also suggest to remove anonymous auto-typed enums without an initial value from which type can be inferred, e.g.: [...] Again,

Re: Better watch out! D runs on watchOS!

Jacob Carlborg writes: > On 2015-12-30 08:02, Dan Olson wrote: > >> I know some of it from hacking dyld for iOS, but not all. How does this >> fit in with "Plan B.2"? > > If you need to figure out how TLS works, I can give you some help, > that's all I'm saying :) Oh, good.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 23:05:11 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Monday, 28 December 2015 at 23:05:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: (a) is the new proposed system differentiated enough to justify its existence and motivate others to join in? I was just watching my newbie friend try

Re: Better watch out! D runs on watchOS!

On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 23:11:06 UTC, Joakim wrote: That sounds like this issue I ran into with ARM EH: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/489#issuecomment-143560075 I was able to work around it by disabling the mentioned llvm optimization pass:

Re: Better watch out! D runs on watchOS!

On Thursday, 31 December 2015 at 00:11:34 UTC, Dan Olson wrote: On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 23:11:06 UTC, Joakim wrote: That sounds like this issue I ran into with ARM EH: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/489#issuecomment-143560075 I was able to work around it by disabling

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

On Monday, 28 December 2015 at 23:05:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: (a) is the new proposed system differentiated enough to justify its existence and motivate others to join in? I was just watching my newbie friend try to manipulate directories in D. His first instinct was to go to

Re: Better watch out! D runs on watchOS!

On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 21:56:46 UTC, Dan Olson wrote: Dan Olson writes: A little progress report. More to come later when I get something pushed to github. I bought a returned Apple Watch yesterday at discount for $223.99 US and tried to see how much of D

Re: DLanguage IntelliJ plugin released

On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 17:04:15 UTC, Suliman wrote: On Monday, 28 December 2015 at 19:23:17 UTC, Kingsley wrote: On Friday, 25 December 2015 at 17:43:06 UTC, Kingsley wrote: On Friday, 25 December 2015 at 16:55:32 UTC, Bogdan wrote: On Friday, 25 December 2015 at 15:28:23 UTC,

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

On Thursday, 31 December 2015 at 00:04:03 UTC, bachmeier wrote: It's the process that requires so much overhead that nobody wants to contribute. I really tried to do so myself, but I'm busy, and it is senseless that 95% (or more) of the time I spend on it is wasted due to a system that is

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

On Thursday, 31 December 2015 at 01:32:56 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: The D leaders know how important examples are. We are often told adding more is low hanging fruit. I completely agree. But that's not ALL we need. He wants examples to get started, yes, but he also wants understanding to go

Re: Better watch out! D runs on watchOS!

On 2015-12-30 08:02, Dan Olson wrote: I know some of it from hacking dyld for iOS, but not all. How does this fit in with "Plan B.2"? If you need to figure out how TLS works, I can give you some help, that's all I'm saying :) -- /Jacob Carlborg

Re: Implementing a Programming Language in D: Lexical Analysis

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 at 05:57:34 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: I've realized that with a nested anonymous enum, there is no need to (and no way of) mentioning the enum type inside a user-defined type. This can simplify the implementation: Only if you intend to use enum members as manifest

Re: 2016Q1: std.blas

On Saturday, 26 December 2015 at 19:57:19 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote: Hi, I will write GEMM and GEMV families of BLAS for Phobos. Cool.

Re: Better docs for D (WIP)

On Wednesday, 30 December 2015 at 14:25:24 UTC, default0 wrote: As an aside, the mere formatting of the list of template-constraints on the dlang page made me nope right out of even bothering to figure out how to read them or what the difference between the first and the second overload of