Frits van Bommel wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
Additionally, the compiler has sufficient information to complain
about the problem at compile time, but it doesn't. That is a bug.
No, it does not. The compiler doesn't
Walter Bright wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
this is related to D's compilation model which is copied from C/C++
and it seems to me that this model is outdated. C#'s model of
assemblies and metadata seems more capable. for instance there's no
need for header files, that info is stored in the
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
The D system has a major limitation, though -- you can't split the source
for a module across multiple files. Which pushes you towards enormous source
files. It's more restricted than both C# and C++ in this respect.
Yeah.
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
The D system has a major limitation, though -- you can't split the source
for a module across multiple files. Which pushes you towards enormous source
files. It's more restricted than both C# and C++ in
Walter Bright wrote:
Frits van Bommel wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
The problem if it detects it in an implementation-defined manner is
the source code is no longer portable.
... If the result of compilation provably won't *run* anyway, what's
the problem with a compile-time error?
Nothing,
Frits van Bommel wrote:
Not even on a best-effort basis?
It doesn't have to catch every possible case; I for one would be
perfectly fine with it if it didn't catch the I omitted a private
import from my .di file case...
Doing so would require full blown data flow analysis, which the front
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
We faced a bug that module static constructors don't work with cyclic
imports. Currently it's fixed with a dirty hack which is not really
acceptable. Is there any chance for this to be fixed?
IMO it is the cyclic import that is the bug ;)
Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
On 2009-02-27 21:49:58 +0100, Fawzi Mohamed fmoha...@mac.com said:
On 2009-02-27 21:10:29 +0100, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com said:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Now we have to make a manual init function called from class
constructors. I understand that
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Yigal Chripunyigal...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with the above but there is still a small issue here:
A module is a single file and when you have several large classes that are
tightly coupled you can get a very big file with
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
We faced a bug that module static constructors don't work with cyclic
imports. Currently it's fixed with a dirty hack which is not really
acceptable. Is there any chance for this to be fixed?
IMO it is the
On 2009-02-28 14:54:26 +0100, Christopher Wright dhase...@gmail.com said:
Lutger wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
We faced a bug that module static constructors don't work with cyclic
imports. Currently it's fixed with a dirty hack which is not
Yigal Chripun wrote:
this is related to D's compilation model which is copied from C/C++ and
it seems to me that this model is outdated. C#'s model of assemblies and
metadata seems more capable. for instance there's no need for header
files, that info is stored in the metadata of the assembly.
Christopher Wright wrote:
Additionally, the compiler has sufficient information to complain about
the problem at compile time, but it doesn't. That is a bug.
No, it does not. The compiler doesn't know about private imports of
separately compiled modules.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
Additionally, the compiler has sufficient information to complain about
the problem at compile time, but it doesn't. That is a bug.
No, it does not. The compiler doesn't know about
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
See it's funny, since in the other post, you said that using an
autogenerated header file is semantically indistinguishable from
compiling it to a metadata file. And here you're pointing out an
obvious shortcoming!
You can make hand-generated ones, too. The idea of
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:03:05 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
See it's funny, since in the other post, you said that using an
autogenerated header file is semantically indistinguishable from
compiling it to a metadata file. And here you're
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Yigal Chripunyigal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree with the above but there is still a small issue here:
A module is a single file and when you have several large classes
that are
tightly coupled you can get a very big file with thousands
We faced a bug that module static constructors don't work with cyclic imports.
Currently it's fixed with a dirty hack which is not really acceptable. Is there
any chance for this to be fixed?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
We faced a bug that module static constructors don't work with cyclic
imports. Currently it's fixed with a dirty hack which is not really
acceptable. Is there any chance for this to be fixed?
I'll save
Walter Bright Wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
We faced a bug that module static constructors don't work with
cyclic imports. Currently it's fixed with a dirty hack which is not
really acceptable. Is
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Now we have to make a manual init function called from class
constructors. I understand that allowing static consructors with
cyclic imports will make order of their execution undefined, but this
is acceptable and actually semantically doesn't break the idea of
cyclic
Walter Bright Wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Now we have to make a manual init function called from class
constructors. I understand that allowing static consructors with
cyclic imports will make order of their execution undefined, but this
is acceptable and actually semantically
On 2009-02-27 21:10:29 +0100, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com said:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Now we have to make a manual init function called from class
constructors. I understand that allowing static consructors with
cyclic imports will make order of their execution undefined, but
On 2009-02-27 21:49:58 +0100, Fawzi Mohamed fmoha...@mac.com said:
On 2009-02-27 21:10:29 +0100, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com said:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Now we have to make a manual init function called from class
constructors. I understand that allowing static consructors
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
in our case resources we are initializing are unrelated to the
modules we are importing. and semantically the code is placed in
modules as it should be.
True, often there isn't an actual dependency on the order, but the
compiler can't tell that.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
in our case resources we are initializing are unrelated to the
modules we are importing. and semantically the code is placed in
modules as it should be.
True, often there isn't an
qtd now works for windows. Here's the binary package
http://qtd.googlecode.com/files/qtd-dmd-tango-win32.zip . It is compiled with
dmd 1.036 and tango from trunk dated November 2008.
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
qtd now works for windows. Here's the binary package
http://qtd.googlecode.com/files/qtd-dmd-tango-win32.zip . It is compiled
with dmd 1.036 and tango from trunk dated November 2008.
What you and your crew are doing is really awesome! And you are beating
all of the nasty linker errors and odd obstacles. Way to go.
At some point in the future I will probably need to write cross-platform
GUI apps in D, and I'll be looking to QT since it is good at this kind
of work. So your
We found out that while compiling qtd with dmd 1.038 and newer compiler hangs.
ldc is also affected by this issue. which means that this is frontend bug.
testcase is big of course. What are the possible options to solve this issue?
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
We found out that while compiling qtd with dmd 1.038 and newer compiler
hangs. ldc is also affected by this issue. which means that this is frontend
bug. testcase is big of course. What are the possible
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:04:12 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
We found out that while compiling qtd with dmd 1.038 and newer compiler
hangs. ldc is also affected by this issue. which means that this is
frontend bug.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Moritz Warning moritzwarn...@web.de wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:04:12 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
We found out that while compiling qtd with dmd 1.038 and newer compiler
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:06 AM, renoX reno...@free.fr wrote:
naryl a écrit :
Don Wrote:
Well, since Qt is going to use the lunatic# LGPL license, you have to use
a DLL anyway for commercial use.
# lunatic because of the prohibition against static linking. I cannot
understand why anyone
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:11 AM,
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:27:35 -0500, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov Wrote:
Max Samukha Wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:55:58 +0900, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Max Samukha
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
The reason why is this file is big is in this bug
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=282 And I don't thing that
placing enums outside the class is a good idea, because
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Finally we managed to compile qtd for Windows. But at the very last
step when compiling example, optlink crashed with a messagebox
containing X86 registers content. This seems to be a blocker for qtd
working on windows..
What you can do is try to obj2asm and dumpobj
Walter Bright Wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Finally we managed to compile qtd for Windows. But at the very last
step when compiling example, optlink crashed with a messagebox
containing X86 registers content. This seems to be a blocker for qtd
working on windows..
What you can do
Finally we managed to compile qtd for Windows. But at the very last step when
compiling example, optlink crashed with a messagebox containing X86 registers
content. This seems to be a blocker for qtd working on windows..
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:06:46 -0500, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally we managed to compile qtd for Windows. But at the very last step when
compiling example, optlink crashed with a messagebox containing X86 registers
content. This seems to be a blocker for qtd working
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally we managed to compile qtd for Windows. But at the very last step when
compiling example, optlink crashed with a messagebox containing X86 registers
content. This seems to be a blocker for qtd working
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Max Samukha
samu...@voliacable.com.removethis wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:06:46 -0500, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally we managed to compile qtd for Windows. But at the very last step when
compiling example, optlink crashed with a
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally we managed to compile qtd for Windows. But at the very last step
when compiling example, optlink crashed with a messagebox containing X86
registers content. This seems to be a
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally we managed to compile qtd for Windows. But at the very last step
when compiling example,
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally we managed to compile qtd for Windows. But at the very last step
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:55:58 +0900, Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Max Samukha
samu...@voliacable.com.removethis wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:06:46 -0500, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally we managed to compile qtd for Windows.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
The reason why is this file is big is in this bug
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=282 And I don't thing that
placing enums outside the class is a good idea, because enums will be exposed
to
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
The reason why is this file is big is in this bug
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=282 And I don't thing that
placing enums outside the class is a good idea, because enums will be
exposed to
Eldar Insafutdinov Wrote:
This way won't really work because there are dozens of such a functions -
that's for virtual dispatch. I have just solved it by declaring functions
export extern (C) and adding _ prefix to function name when calling
GetProcAddress. So technically there are no
Mike Parker Wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
naryl Wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov Wrote:
I'm thinking on putting only C++ part of binding to a dll, while
statically link D part. With Qt 4.5 out under lgpl we can make QtD under
BSD, so this will work.
You mean the Revised BSD License
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:22:41 +0300, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Can somebody help me with exporting functions from a DLL? I am defining
functions in C++ like
extern C __declspec(dllexport) void*
__qtd_QObject_QObject_QObject(args)
After compiling a DLL with MINGW and
Don Wrote:
John Reimer wrote:
Hello Eldar,
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:59:28 +0300, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
ideage Wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Don Wrote:
John Reimer wrote:
Hello Eldar,
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:59:28 +0300, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov Wrote:
I'm thinking on putting only C++ part of binding to a dll, while statically
link D part. With Qt 4.5 out under lgpl we can make QtD under BSD, so this
will work.
You mean the Revised BSD License I presume?
naryl wrote:
Don Wrote:
Well, since Qt is going to use the lunatic# LGPL license, you have to
use a DLL anyway for commercial use.
# lunatic because of the prohibition against static linking. I cannot
understand why anyone would use such an absolutely moronic license.
LGPL doesn't
naryl Wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov Wrote:
I'm thinking on putting only C++ part of binding to a dll, while statically
link D part. With Qt 4.5 out under lgpl we can make QtD under BSD, so this
will work.
You mean the Revised BSD License I presume?
It's a subject to discuss. I am not
Don nos...@nospam.com wrote in message
news:gn1saj$14u...@digitalmars.com...
It feels to me like giving you a free car PROVIDED that you ensure that
there is a coffee cup glued to the top of it at all times.
I'd go for that ;-)
Can somebody help me with exporting functions from a DLL? I am defining
functions in C++ like
extern C __declspec(dllexport) void* __qtd_QObject_QObject_QObject(args)
After compiling a DLL with MINGW and producing a lib file for it with implib I
am trying to use them from D.
In D I declare them
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Can somebody help me with exporting functions from a DLL? I am defining
functions in C++ like
extern C __declspec(dllexport) void* __qtd_QObject_QObject_QObject(args)
After compiling a DLL with MINGW and
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Can somebody help me with exporting functions from a DLL? I am defining
functions in C++ like
extern C __declspec(dllexport) void* __qtd_QObject_QObject_QObject(args)
After compiling
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Can somebody help me with exporting functions from a DLL? I am defining
functions in C++ like
extern C __declspec(dllexport) void* __qtd_QObject_QObject_QObject(args)
After compiling
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Can somebody help me with exporting functions from a DLL? I am defining
functions in C++ like
extern
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:48:07 -0500, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com
Max Samukha Wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:48:07 -0500, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:22 AM, Eldar
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:59:28 +0300, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
ideage Wrote:
Great stuff!
Expect window's version!
So after some time trying to build qtd windows packages I realized that
there are huge issues. I tried first
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:59:28 +0300, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
ideage Wrote:
Great stuff!
Expect window's version!
So after some time trying to
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:59:28 +0300, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
ideage Wrote:
Great stuff!
Expect window's version!
Hello Eldar,
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:59:28 +0300, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
ideage Wrote:
Great stuff!
Expect window's version!
So
I recommend the ddl route if you can make it work.
Sorry, not ddl... meant to say dll.
:P
ideage Wrote:
Great stuff!
Expect window's version!
So after some time trying to build qtd windows packages I realized that there
are huge issues. I tried first dmd and since I have to link D part of wrapper
with C++ object files produced by mingw - it didnt work and I was told that
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
ideage Wrote:
Great stuff!
Expect window's version!
So after some time trying to build qtd windows packages I realized that there
are huge issues. I tried first dmd and since I have to link D part of
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:59:28 +0300, Eldar Insafutdinov
e.insafutdi...@gmail.com wrote:
ideage Wrote:
Great stuff!
Expect window's version!
So after some time trying to build qtd windows packages I realized that
there are huge issues. I tried first dmd and since I have to link D part
Daniel Keep wrote:
Also, I apologise for the derailment.
Oh I hear ya. Web development makes pacifistic people wanna kill.
Including myself.
grauzone wrote:
If you found a page where it is still active, can you please give me
the url?
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/learn/Mixin_versus_c_preprocessor_11830.html
Ah, I see. It's an older page, one that I didn't update.
I suspect this is the offending piece of
grauzone Wrote:
Do I see correctly, that you didn't need to introduce a MOC compiler for
D? And that the Signal and Slots implementation is written in pure D?
Yes. But it is limited. No information, no dynamic invokation, different type
of connections not implemented(but this theoretically
Nick Sabalausky escribió:
Daniel Keep daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:gmg4av$dq...@digitalmars.com...
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
lol :)
Yeah, well, for a directory listing they could have shown the full tree,
but if it's too big then it's ugly, and browsing folder by folder
Thank you!
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
David Ferenczi Wrote:
I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!
Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
implementation of
Great stuff!
Expect window's version!
I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!
Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) which
means that you
David Ferenczi Wrote:
I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!
Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
implementation of signals and slots(thanks to great people
ideage Wrote:
Great stuff!
Expect window's version!
I will probably do it in couple of weeks. Don't have time now :(
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first implementation of
signals and slots(thanks to great people from #d) which means that you can
actually start doing something useful. 0.1 is probably most suitable tag for
this release. Again - see tutorials
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
David Ferenczi Wrote:
I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!
Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
implementation of signals and
Daniel Keep escribió:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
David Ferenczi Wrote:
I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!
Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
It didn't take very long after previous post to make a first
implementation
Daniel Keep daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:gmfo1e$2kt...@digitalmars.com...
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
David Ferenczi Wrote:
I'm glad to see this release and the progress of qtd!
Coudl you please provide a link to the tutrial? Many thanks!
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote in message
news:gmfr9m$2u5...@digitalmars.com...
Plus, notice that you can't open one of the files in a new tab without it
*also* opening in the same tab.
Clarification: That problem seems to happen on Ctrl-Click, but not
Right-Click-Open In New Tab.
Daniel Keep daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:gmfujj$2t...@digitalmars.com...
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Daniel Keep escribió:
No files in this directory.
Well that sucks. Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...
*unblocks javascript*
No files in this directory, but there ARE
BCS wrote:
Reply to Bill,
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Daniel Keep
daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com wrote:
You want to use JS to make the site more usable? That's great! But
you DO NOT break basic functionality to do it. EVER. If you can't
figure out how, you're not qualified to be
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
lol :)
Yeah, well, for a directory listing they could have shown the full tree,
but if it's too big then it's ugly, and browsing folder by folder (like
dsource) is slow for me.
The point is that instead of giving you a sub-optimal but functional
alternative, they
Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.658.1233882921.22690.digitalmars-d-annou...@puremagic.com...
http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions I'm not exaggerating when I say
that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad
I
was *very* close to
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Bill Baxter wbax...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.658.1233882921.22690.digitalmars-d-annou...@puremagic.com...
http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions I'm not exaggerating when I say
that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad
Daniel Keep daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:gmg4av$dq...@digitalmars.com...
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
lol :)
Yeah, well, for a directory listing they could have shown the full tree,
but if it's too big then it's ugly, and browsing folder by folder (like
dsource) is slow for
Hello Bill,
http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions I'm not exaggerating when I
say that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web
was so bad I was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely.
What kind of sites do you go that are so bad? I find things a little
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Interesting side note: I've noticed that such flash-only pages and sites
seem to be by far the most common among musicians and restaurant chains.
Yup; I *hate* looking up tour dates.
Don't get me started on actual Flash development... (I have the
oh-so-wonderful luck
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Daniel Keepdaniel.keep.li...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:gmfujj$2t...@digitalmars.com...
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Daniel Keep escribió:
No files in this directory.
Well that sucks. Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...
*unblocks javascript*
No files in this
Hello Chris,
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Daniel Keepdaniel.keep.li...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:gmfujj$2t...@digitalmars.com...
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Daniel Keep escribió:
No files in this directory.
Well that sucks. Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...
*unblocks javascript*
No
But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?
Yesterday, I was on digitalmars.com, browsing the archive for the D
newsgroup. Actually, I just had it open in a tab, and was actively
browsing another website. I wondered why the browser had such a bad
response. Finally, I
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
