On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 14:34:52 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 28/03/14 13:48, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
In theory there should be no reason it cannot. Assuming its
not doing
something like reading files (note you can catch this and say
not at CTFE).
Proof that a preprocessor can be used fo
On 28/03/14 13:48, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
In theory there should be no reason it cannot. Assuming its not doing
something like reading files (note you can catch this and say not at CTFE).
Proof that a preprocessor can be used for this [0].
You can use a string import to read a file.
--
/Jaco
On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 11:59:47 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
If it's just a preprocessor, I guess string mixins with delight
don't compile.
In theory there should be no reason it cannot. Assuming its not
doing something like reading files (note you can catch this and
say not at CTF
If it's just a preprocessor, I guess string mixins with delight
don't compile.
On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 10:11:52 UTC, Peter Plantinga wrote:
Just out of interest, but any plans to convert blocks of
delight code in a file and output the resulting D version?
Also will that work at CTFE?
Actually that's the way it works now. The program always
outputs D code. Yo
Just out of interest, but any plans to convert blocks of
delight code in a file and output the resulting D version? Also
will that work at CTFE?
Actually that's the way it works now. The program always outputs
D code. You can also choose to pass it through to a D compiler.
Since the
one before, and the
result was called Delight. I'm reviving this idea (though with
entirely new code, since the previous version was with D1).
A short list of the best features (that aren't already a part
of D):
* Python-like syntax
* List comprehensions
* "0 .. x" works ev
makes it
great. But I've had an idea for another language, a high-level
language, that is nearly as fast as a similar D program.
What it looks like is a D preprocessor that translates
Python-like code into D code. It was done before, and the result
was called Delight. I'm reviving th
On Thursday, 25 September 2008 at 14:27:42 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Mosfet:
Is there any performance loss from compared to D language ?
No, it's just D1 resyntaxed. That is, it generally improves on
the old-school syntax of D ;-)
Bye,
bearophile
"Improves" is pretty subjective...
On Thursday, 25 September 2008 at 14:00:30 UTC, bearophile wrote:
D1 + Tango with a different Python-inspired syntax; close to my
ideal language:
http://delight.sourceforge.net/
There are just few things I don't like, but they are generally
minor, and maybe the author can change some of them
anguage as well, which is why I've decided to take
> up the cause again. Unfortunately the last changes to the code were 5 years
> ago, and D has progressed since then. So I'm going to start over with the
> same ideals in mind. If anyone wants to contribute, the code will be host
If
anyone wants to contribute, the code will be hosted at
http://github.com/pplantinga/delight
So I have what is probably a noob question: is there any way for
me to compile the generated D code without packaging an entire D
compiler?
Thomas Leonard:
> Having 'function' or 'delegate' come first makes parsing easier (e.g. for
> syntax highlighters, etc).
A syntax like C# lambdas looks better, but I understand your points. func o
fun or def may be used as shorter form of function.
Bye,
bearophile
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:56:56 -0400, bearophile wrote:
> More things from the site:
> Thomas Leonard:
>>- anonymous functions work ("function(int x): x + 1"). This is like
> lambda in Python.<
>
> Note that D1 and D2 already support this syntax: (int x, float y) {
> return x+y; }
Unfortunately, t
14 matches
Mail list logo
