On Monday, 20 March 2023 at 13:18:36 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
I'm on the road for the next three weeks. During the trip, I'll
be organizing into some kind of coherent format all the gripes
and wishes people have sent me at soc...@dlang.org. I'll be
back home in the second week of April and hope
On Sunday, 28 August 2022 at 10:37:03 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
with Martin noting that this isn't a problem if you're properly
encapsulating your types.
While ignoring the issues/drawbacks that has been brought up when
involving certain solutions to achieve this.
I can't argue against a wall
On Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 08:12:57 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:
On Monday, 26 April 2021 at 14:01:37 UTC, sighoya wrote:
On Monday, 26 April 2021 at 13:17:49 UTC, FeepingCreature
wrote:
On Sunday, 25 April 2021 at 21:27:55 UTC, sighoya wrote:
On Monday, 19 April 2021 at 06:37:03 UTC,
On Monday, 1 March 2021 at 01:02:48 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Sunday, 28 February 2021 at 11:56:28 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
Glad to announce the first beta for the 2.096.0 release, ♥ to
the 53 contributors.
http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta
http://dlang.org/changelog/2.096.0.html
As usual
On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 12:59:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 12:58:06 UTC, Mike Parker
wrote:
DIP 1030, "Named Arguments", has been accepted.
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1030.md
YES, YES, YES, I had argue in favor of
On Monday, 15 June 2020 at 20:51:38 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Monday, 15 June 2020 at 20:47:16 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 15:11:49 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
https://code.dlang.org/packages/tardy
https://github.com/atilaneves/tardy
[...]
Wouldn't a top type be a
On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 15:11:49 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
https://code.dlang.org/packages/tardy
https://github.com/atilaneves/tardy
[...]
Wouldn't a top type be a better way to achieve this?
-Alex
On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 00:50:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/21/2020 2:44 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
One concern here is that these responses are scattered across
different parts of a long discussion thread. So it probably
would be a good idea for the acceptance to be accompanied
On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 13:51:34 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1028, "Make @safe the Default", has been accepted without
comment.
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1028.md
I guess they be more open to dips that fixes holes in the "safe
by default" feature then.
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 19:45:49 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 19:35:16 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Having the compiler lower string interpolation to some hidden
template is - AST macros. We're not doing AST macros.
This is untrue.
Hidden user-defined
On Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 15:31:24 UTC, Exil wrote:
D isn't a systems programming language
"“But D has a GC!”, I hear you exclaim. Yes, but it’s also a
systems programming language with value types and pointers,
meaning that today, D isn’t memory safe. DIP1000 was a step in
the
On Wednesday, 23 October 2019 at 04:20:19 UTC, Exil wrote:
Not to mention the problem is actually solved just by using the
GC.
The d language is marked as a system programming language. The GC
is not going to cut it to a lot of people.(Did you forget the
whole betterC flag?)
-Alex
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 23:46:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/broadcom-buy-symantec-enterprise-division-201706500.html
It's the end of an era. Symantec bought my company, Zortech,
and now is bought in return. The D community, and myself
personally, owe a debt
On Saturday, 20 July 2019 at 21:56:50 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/20/2019 5:42 AM, Sebastiaan Koppe wrote:
Anyway my question is whether the ownership and borrowing
semantics ever gets applied to non-pointers?
Currently, no. The programmer would be expected to include the
correct
On Tuesday, 26 February 2019 at 22:34:45 UTC, Seb wrote:
Hi all,
I have some very exciting news to share.
[...]
That is great news! What is not great news is that I am no longer
a student and I couldn't attend to this even though I want to.
On Friday, 1 February 2019 at 23:24:44 UTC, Olivier FAURE wrote:
On Friday, 1 February 2019 at 09:10:15 UTC, aliak wrote:
Shouldn't doubleMyValue(pt.x) be a compiler error if pt.x is a
getter? For it not to be a compile error pt.x should also have
a setter, in which case the code needs to be
On Friday, 1 February 2019 at 15:58:50 UTC, Aliak wrote:
On Friday, 1 February 2019 at 14:41:52 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Friday, 1 February 2019 at 11:48:51 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 01.02.19 10:10, aliak wrote:
[...]
http://wilzbach.github.io/d-dip/DIP24
I'm not sure your rewrite is
On Friday, 1 February 2019 at 11:48:51 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 01.02.19 10:10, aliak wrote:
Shouldn't doubleMyValue(pt.x) be a compiler error if pt.x is a
getter? For it not to be a compile error pt.x should also have
a setter, in which case the code needs to be lowered to
something
On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 18:29:37 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:20 AM Neia Neutuladh via
Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 09:15:36 -0800, Manu wrote:
> Why are you so stuck on this case? The DIP is about
> accepting rvalues,
> not lvalues...
> Calling
On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 16:47:48 UTC, Don wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 13:58:38 UTC, 12345swordy
wrote:
I do not accept gut feeling as a valid objection here. The
current workarounds is shown to be painful as shown in the dip
and in the discussions that it currently link.
On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 04:34:46 UTC, Don wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 03:01:36 UTC, 12345swordy
wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 00:25:17 UTC, Don wrote:
But what I fail to see is why can't the programmer solve this
themselves instead of relying on a new feature
On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 at 00:25:17 UTC, Don wrote:
But what I fail to see is why can't the programmer solve this
themselves instead of relying on a new feature that would cause
more harm?
Donald.
...Did you even read the arguments in the dip? This has been
discuss quite a lot in
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 23:43:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
It's no problem if you want to rework the existing text, just
submit it as a new DIP.
And wait for another 180+ days for a fix? Come on dude, can you
understand the frustration being display here?
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 at 17:29:12 UTC, welkam wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 at 11:59:58 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
He's not saying "kill classes in D", he's saying an OOP system
in D could be implemented from primitives and classes don't
need to be a language feature, similar to CLOS
On Monday, 14 January 2019 at 10:06:48 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
On Monday, 14 January 2019 at 05:31:27 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
When something like an object system is made part of the
language (or at the very least, the standard library), it
becomes a focal point [2] that the community can
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 12:57:03 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 12:52:20 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 10:45:39 UTC, Atila Neves
wrote:
A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
On Friday, 30 November 2018 at 20:10:05 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I would like to announce a new project I've started, called DLP
(D Language Processing). Currently it's quite experimental but
the idea is that it would contain a collection of commands for
inspecting D code in various ways. It
On Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 18:11:59 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:27:05 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
There have been various attempts over the years to "fix"
various things in the D matching system by adding "just one
more" match level.
I kind of feel like, if
On Tuesday, 13 November 2018 at 17:50:20 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:46:17 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Maybe the biggest gripe here is that enums don't prefer their
base types over what their base types convert to. In the
developer's mind, the conversion is:
A =>
On Monday, 12 November 2018 at 21:38:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/12/2018 8:28 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
The issue that I see is unintended implicit conversation when
passing values to functions that have both int and bool
overloads.
The exact same thing happens when there are both int
On Monday, 12 November 2018 at 21:29:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I once worked with software that defined true as 0 and false as
1
OK, I got to know what language you were using at the time,
because I am curious at what other oddities does it have.
-Alex
On Monday, 12 November 2018 at 10:05:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, November 12, 2018 2:45:14 AM MST Mike Parker via
Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
DIP 1015, "Deprecation and removal of implicit conversion from
integer and character literals to bool, has been rejected,
primarily on
On Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 03:04:06 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 6:54:54 PM MST Mike Parker via
Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
I'm happy to announce that Walter and Andrei have rendered
their verdict on DIP 1014. They were in agreement on two
points: they
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 15:14:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Last week, inspired by another discussion in these forums about
D's private-to-the-module form of encapsulation, I spent a few
hours putting a new article together for the blog. Ali, Joakim,
Nicholas helped me get it in shape.
On Monday, 5 November 2018 at 01:23:44 UTC, nobodycares wrote:
I assume the moderator(s) doesn't like me anymore, as my posts
are no longer being published. Great way to run a discussion
forum by the way.
It not just you, my post had disappear only to reappear on later
dates. I can vouch
On Sunday, 4 November 2018 at 15:40:03 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2018 11:36:39 +, FooledDonor wrote:
Can we argue about the problems arising from the potential
introduction of this feature?
There are many potential features that wouldn't cause problems
in isolation.
On Friday, 2 November 2018 at 00:12:29 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
Glad to announce D 2.083.0, ♥ to the 51 contributors.
This release comes with betterC support in dub, new
CppRuntime_* version identifiers, an isZeroInit trait, and an
exported environment variable DUB_PACKAGE_VERSION during dub
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 20:23:21 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 10/31/2018 6:25 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
Again what consist of a module of being "too large"?
That seems to me that more of a art then a science.
If you're looking for a rigid rule, you won't find one.
But a good indicator
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 13:24:10 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 13:16:45 UTC, 12345swordy
wrote:
I seen modules with more then thousand lines of code in the
Phobos library.
$ wc simpledisplay.d nanovega.d dom.d cgi.d
14152 54984 443111 simpledisplay.d
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 13:39:25 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
On 01/11/2018 2:35 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 13:28:54 UTC, rikki
cattermole wrote:
On 01/11/2018 2:25 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
[...]
Because it is.
My rules (which tend to be a little
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 13:28:54 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
On 01/11/2018 2:25 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 13:22:28 UTC, rikki
cattermole wrote:
On 01/11/2018 2:16 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
[...]
We have been splitting Phobos modules up:
std.algorithm
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 13:22:28 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
On 01/11/2018 2:16 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 05:42:26 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
Running into such problems is a sign that your module is too
large, and should become a package.
I seen modules
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 05:42:26 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
Running into such problems is a sign that your module is too
large, and should become a package.
I seen modules with more then thousand lines of code in the
Phobos library. What exactly consist a module of being "too
large"?
On Monday, 29 October 2018 at 09:57:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/28/2018 8:43 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
Congratulations are in order for Iain Buclaw. His efforts have
been rewarded in a big way. Last Friday, he got the greenlight
to move forward with submitting his changes into GCC:
On Monday, 24 September 2018 at 17:34:58 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 00:55, Gary Willoughby via
Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
On Sunday, 23 September 2018 at 02:40:15 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
> It appears that @implicit has been removed from the
> implementation [1], but not
On Monday, 17 September 2018 at 23:07:22 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 at 13:55, 12345swordy via
Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:08:33 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have finished writing the last details of the copy
> const
On Thursday, 20 September 2018 at 14:57:42 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
If you've never heard of automem before, I wrote it to have
C++-style smart pointers in D that I could use in @nogc code:
[...]
Official bindings to std::vector will soon be added by manu. (I
think)
On Wednesday, 19 September 2018 at 13:10:07 UTC, Daniel Kozak
wrote:
http://releases.llvm.org/7.0.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#external-open-source-projects-using-llvm-7
no mention of D anymore :(
http://releases.llvm.org/6.0.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#external-open-source-projects-using-llvm-6
On Tuesday, 18 September 2018 at 17:20:26 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
The `shared` keyword currently means one of two things:
1. You can use core.atomic with it
2. It's some struct and you BYOM (Bring Your Own Mutex)
[...]
Why is this is an external 3rd party library isn't of the
standard
On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:08:33 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have finished writing the last details of the copy
constructor DIP[1] and also I have published the first
implementation [2]. As I wrongfully made a PR for the DIP queue
in the early stages of the development of
On Tuesday, 31 July 2018 at 13:50:52 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 July 2018 at 13:36:13 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 July 2018 at 03:23:41 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Second, it is incumbent upon non-student applicants who are
currently employed by a software development firm to
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 19:22:13 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 17:59:27 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
While ANY C++ game can make ANY number of
allocations/allocations inside a game loop and still run
without a risking any freeze.
You are doing something very wrong if you
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 17:59:27 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
While ANY C++ game can make ANY number of
allocations/allocations inside a game loop and still run
without a risking any freeze.
You are doing something very wrong if you are doing this.
-Alexander
Just try it.
For what rhyme
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 17:16:54 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
Are you seriously going to ignore video games that are
entirely implemented in GC focus language such as C#/java?!
The GC is NOT AN ISSUE IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!
-Alexander
+1
You are start reminding me of another
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 17:04:37 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
Also if your concatenate string in a loop in c# then you use
the https://www.dotnetperls.com/string-join function as it
simpler and faster.
There is no reason why we can't have the function equivalent
in D.
-Alexander
Yeah I
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 17:00:49 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 16:48:17 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 16:45:41 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 16:33:19 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
[...]
LOL
Unless you implement your game in
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 15:19:33 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 14:52:46 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 14:11:05 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 13:50:37 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
[...]
+1
Just one silly question.
Can the
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 16:45:41 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 16:33:19 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 15:19:33 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
For C++, the answer is : never.
...Yeah I had already figure out what your aiming at. For C++
the correct
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 15:19:33 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
For C++, the answer is : never.
...Yeah I had already figure out what your aiming at. For C++ the
correct answer is "I do not know as I don't know how it is
implemented". You act like there isn't any GC libraries for C++.
-Alex
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 14:11:05 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 13:50:37 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 13:15:43 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
[...]
No triple AAA engine is going to switch to D for the following
reasons:
1.)Cost vs benefit from
On Friday, 6 July 2018 at 13:15:43 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
LOL
Ok, if I'm wrong, then this means D is already a perfect
replacement to C++, especially for game development.
Just by curiosity, can you tell me how many successful
commercial games based on a D game engine are released each
On Monday, 14 May 2018 at 15:23:41 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
I planned an extended vacation with my wife around DConf this
year and, despite my intentions before we left, fell quite far
behind on my D duties. I'm in the process of getting caught up
with everything, and that includes publishing
On Saturday, 21 April 2018 at 12:41:02 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
From https://dlang.org/spec/cpp_interface.html:
"C++ constructors, copy constructors, move constructors and
destructors cannot be called directly in D code".
O RLY?
// hdr.hpp
struct Struct {
void *data;
On Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 14:10:39 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Jared Hanson (a.k.a Meta and MetaLang around these parts) was
inspired by an article titled "std::visit is everything wrong
with modern C++" to contrast it with D's std.variant.visit. The
result is this well-written post for the D
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a
few of the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had
put together. He thought it would be useful for the Foundation
to use in order to make decisions about
On Wednesday, 23 August 2017 at 13:12:04 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
To coincide with the improvements to -betterC in the upcoming
DMD 2.076, Walter has published a new article on the D blog
about what it is and why to use it. A fun read. And I'm
personally happy to see the love this feature is
On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 07:04:55 UTC, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
Hi,
there is a new version 0.45 of Visual D available at
http://rainers.github.io/visuald/visuald/StartPage.html
Most changes are bug fixes and incremental improvements, maybe
standing out:
* improved VS 2017 integration
*
67 matches
Mail list logo
