On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 14:19:33 +0100, Daniel Kozak wrote:
> default(attributes..) is no needed. You can already do this by:
>
> pure @safe:
> // your code
That doesn't work if you have any member functions, and Walter says it's
unlikely that that will ever change, even with a DIP.
default(pure)
On 12/19/18 2:58 PM, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:28:01 +, Vijay Nayar wrote:
Could you please elaborate a little bit more on this? In the linked
program, I had expected that "ref" would return a reference to "a" that
would behave similar to a pointer.
They work like
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 at 23:10:34 UTC, Rubn wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 at 19:58:53 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
[...]
To be fair even in c++ this won't be a reference.
int& foo();
auto a = foo(); // a == int
auto& a = foo(); // a == int&
So it shouldn't be that surprising.
default(attributes..) is no needed. You can already do this by:
pure @safe:
// your code
But what is needed is some way to disable those attributes. As you
mentioned one way could be done by allowing this:
pure(false) or pure!false or @disable(pure,@nogc...)
>From implementation point of
On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 18:29:39 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
The attribute spam is almost longer than the function itself.
I often wished for something like
module foo.bar;
default(@safe, pure);
function foo() { } // is annotated with @safe & pure
@deny(pure) // or pure(false)
On 12/13/2018 10:29 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
The attribute spam is almost longer than the function itself.
Attributes only start to matter when creating code that will be around for a
long time (such as reusable libraries). It's a waste of effort for short term code.
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 at 19:58:53 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:28:01 +, Vijay Nayar wrote:
Could you please elaborate a little bit more on this? In the
linked program, I had expected that "ref" would return a
reference to "a" that would behave similar to a
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:28:01 +, Vijay Nayar wrote:
> Could you please elaborate a little bit more on this? In the linked
> program, I had expected that "ref" would return a reference to "a" that
> would behave similar to a pointer.
They work like pointers that automatically dereference when
On Wednesday, 12 December 2018 at 07:44:12 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 12/11/2018 4:51 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> Returning a reference
Wow, thats f*ck'n stupid! https://run.dlang.io/is/SAplYw
It's quite deliberate.
ref in C++ is a type constructor, but it's so special-cased to
behave
On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 01:45 +, Neia Neutuladh via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 01:04:24 +, Nathan S. wrote:
> > On Saturday, 15 December 2018 at 19:53:06 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> > > Not the case in Rust, not the case in how I write D. TBH it's not such
> > > a big
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 1:17:28 AM MST Russel Winder via Digitalmars-
d-announce wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 12:16 -0800, Walter Bright via
> Digitalmars-d-announce
> wrote:
> > […]
> >
> > Going pure, however, is much harder (at least for me) because I'm not
> > used to
> > programming
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 8:00:48 AM MST Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On 12/17/18 4:42 AM, Dukc wrote:
> > On Monday, 17 December 2018 at 09:41:01 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 15 December 2018 at 19:53:06 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> >>> @safe and pure though...
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 7:02:43 PM MST H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 06:53:02PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...]
>
> > I confess that I do tend to think about things from the standpoint of
> > a library designer
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 06:53:02PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
> I confess that I do tend to think about things from the standpoint of
> a library designer though, in part because I work on stuff like
> Phobos, but also because I tend to break up my programs
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 6:35:34 AM MST Pjotr Prins via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 at 11:25:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > Of course, even if we _did_ have a solution for reversing
> > attributes, slapping an attribute on the top of the module
> >
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 01:04:24 +, Nathan S. wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 December 2018 at 19:53:06 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> Not the case in Rust, not the case in how I write D. TBH it's not such
>> a big deal because something has to be typed, I just default to const
>> now anyway instead of auto.
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 at 19:53:06 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
Not the case in Rust, not the case in how I write D. TBH it's
not such a big deal because something has to be typed, I just
default to const now anyway instead of auto. @safe and pure
though...
I'd be interested in seeing some
On 18-12-2018 19:52, Russel Winder wrote:
On Tue, 2018-12-18 at 16:50 +, Neia Neutuladh via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
Is there a video link for that talk? I'd be interested in hearing it.
The videos are here:
https://gstconf.ubicast.tv/channels/#gstreamer-conference-2018
I think
On Tue, 2018-12-18 at 16:50 +, Neia Neutuladh via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 08:17:28 +, Russel Winder wrote:
> > I did a lightning talk at the GStreamer conference in Edinburgh a couple
> > of months ago, concluding that I think D (which about half the audience
>
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 08:17:28 +, Russel Winder wrote:
> I did a lightning talk at the GStreamer conference in Edinburgh a couple
> of months ago, concluding that I think D (which about half the audience
> knew of) is overall better than Rust for GTK+ and GStreamer
> applications, but
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:17:28AM +, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 12:16 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
> wrote:
> > […]
> >
> > Going pure, however, is much harder (at least for me) because I'm
> > not used to programming that way.
On Monday, 17 December 2018 at 11:04:13 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
Why @safe? Can't you just write "@safe:" on top and switch to
@system/@trusted as needed?
Not quite. It doesn't work the way most people expect for
member functions and causes problems for templates.
Don't templates infer
On 12/17/18 4:42 AM, Dukc wrote:
On Monday, 17 December 2018 at 09:41:01 UTC, Dukc wrote:
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 at 19:53:06 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
@safe and pure though...
Why @safe? Can't you just write "@safe:" on top and switch to
@system/@trusted as needed?
Argh, I forgot
On Tue, 2018-12-18 at 12:20 +, Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 at 10:19:14 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> > Clojure is but you have to work hard for that, the initial
> > language is effectively pure.
>
> https://ideone.com/y8KWja clearly it isn't, its
On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 at 11:25:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Of course, even if we _did_ have a solution for reversing
attributes, slapping an attribute on the top of the module
would still potentially be a maintenance problem, because it's
then really easy to miss that an attribute
On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 at 12:20:48 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 at 10:19:14 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
Clojure is but you have to work hard for that, the initial
language is effectively pure.
https://ideone.com/y8KWja clearly it isn't, its site only
claims that most
On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 at 10:19:14 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
Clojure is but you have to work hard for that, the initial
language is effectively pure.
https://ideone.com/y8KWja clearly it isn't, its site only claims
that most code happens to be pure, but it looks like it's not
checked
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 3:36:15 AM MST Pjotr Prins via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 18:29:39 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
>
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 10:29:10 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> >> Do you honestly think that they will ever take D into account
On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 18:29:39 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 10:29:10 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
Do you honestly think that they will ever take D into account
if @safe and immutable data will be the default?
D needs to stop chasing after what you think people
On Tue, 2018-12-18 at 09:59 +, Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>
[…]
> AIU rust, clojure and prolog are impure.
Clearly Rust is because it allows for mutability, though it is not the
default.
Clojure is but you have to work hard for that, the initial language is
effectively pure.
On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 at 08:17:28 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
Rust I feel has a pivotal role in all this. By emphasising the
ML view on mixed declarative and imperative programming, it has
found an interesting middle ground that seems to work very
well. Many of the C programmers who
On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 12:16 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> […]
>
> Going pure, however, is much harder (at least for me) because I'm not used
> to
> programming that way. Making a function pure often requires reorganization
> of
> how a task is broken up into data
On 12/15/2018 11:53 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
@safe and pure though...
@safe is not so hard to adopt, since by using @trusted one can proceed
incrementally.
Going pure, however, is much harder (at least for me) because I'm not used to
programming that way. Making a function pure often
On Monday, 17 December 2018 at 09:41:01 UTC, Dukc wrote:
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 at 19:53:06 UTC, Atila Neves
wrote:
@safe and pure though...
Why @safe? Can't you just write "@safe:" on top and switch to
@system/@trusted as needed?
Not quite. It doesn't work the way most people
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 at 19:53:06 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
@safe and pure though...
Why @safe? Can't you just write "@safe:" on top and switch to
@system/@trusted as needed?
On Monday, 17 December 2018 at 09:41:01 UTC, Dukc wrote:
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 at 19:53:06 UTC, Atila Neves
wrote:
@safe and pure though...
Why @safe? Can't you just write "@safe:" on top and switch to
@system/@trusted as needed?
Argh, I forgot that you are not supposed to @safe
On Sat, 2018-12-15 at 19:53 +, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 December 2018 at 02:16:36 UTC, Nathan S. wrote:
> > On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 10:14:45 UTC, Atila Neves
> > wrote:
> > > My impression is that it's a consensus that it _should_, but
> > >
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 at 02:16:36 UTC, Nathan S. wrote:
On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 10:14:45 UTC, Atila Neves
wrote:
My impression is that it's a consensus that it _should_, but
it's not going to happen due to breaking existing code.
I think it would be a bad idea for `immutable`
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 10:45:39 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
Wait, no word about ref parameters? No way!
If you try to bind to typical C++ code they are
On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 10:14:45 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
My impression is that it's a consensus that it _should_, but
it's not going to happen due to breaking existing code.
I think it would be a bad idea for `immutable` because more often
than not it would need to be turned off.
On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 18:29:39 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
2) LETTING US TURN THEM OFF. SERIOUSLY WHY DON'T WE HAVE
`virtual`, `throws`, `impure` AND THE REST?! THIS IS SO OBVIOUS
AND THE LACK OF THEM IS UNBELIEVABLY FRUSTRATING.
Well, we had virtual, it was reverted
I know,
On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 18:29:39 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
Though, I think we could also get a lot of mileage out of
fixing two glaring problems with the status quo: 1) making
attr: at the top descend into aggregates consistently and 2)
LETTING US TURN THEM OFF. SERIOUSLY WHY DON'T WE
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 10:45:39 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
I think there’s a general consensus that @safe, pure and
immutable should be default.
I recall there was a decent chunk of people around D2.007 who
were pushing for const-by-default function parameters on the
grounds of if
On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 18:29:39 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
I wanna show you something:
/// Static convenience functions for common color names
nothrow pure @nogc @safe
static Color transparent() { return Color(0, 0, 0, 0); }
Enums could resolve this particular case.
My thought on
On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 10:29:10 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
Do you honestly think that they will ever take D into account
if @safe and immutable data will be the default?
D needs to stop chasing after what you think people think they
want and just start being good for us.
The majority of
On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 17:07:58 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[snip]
Why not? You can opt out. It's not as though you're forced to
use immutable everything and nothing but, like in a pure
functional language. Just tack on @system or mutable when you
need to.
Mutable might be a
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:29:10AM +, RazvanN via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
[...]
> D and Rust are competing to get the C/C++/Java/Python market share. In
> order to do that they should make it simple for developers to convert
> to the new language. Due to its design, Rust is insanely
On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 10:14:45 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 09:40:45 UTC, RazvanN 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 Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 09:40:45 UTC, RazvanN 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:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
That was a really good blog post,
On Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 09:40:45 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
"I think there’s a general consensus that @safe, pure and
immutable should be default."
It's not at all a general consensus and doing this would
literally break all the existing D code. Without discussing all
the technical
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 10:45:39 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
That was a really good blog post, however I am strongly against
the following sentence:
"I think
On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:49:51 PM MST H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> If the delegate property thing is the only real use case for @property,
> it seems quite out-of-proportion that an entire @-identifier in the
> language is dedicated just for this purpose. One would've
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 02:10:31PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 6:03:39 AM MST Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-
> announce wrote:
[...]
> > Imagine you have void delegate() prop() and use the property
> > without parentheses everywhere then
On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 6:03:39 AM MST Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 12:57:03 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> > @property is useful for setters. Now, IMHO setters are a code
> > stink anyway but sometimes they're the way to go. I have no
> > idea
On Wednesday, 12 December 2018 at 20:12:54 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 December 2018 at 14:48:23 UTC, Atila Neves
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 14:00:10 UTC, dayllenger wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 13:42:03 UTC, Guillaume
Piolat wrote:
One could say getters
On Wednesday, 12 December 2018 at 14:48:23 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 14:00:10 UTC, dayllenger wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 13:42:03 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
One could say getters and particularly setters don't really
deserve a nicer way to write
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 14:00:10 UTC, dayllenger wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 13:42:03 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
One could say getters and particularly setters don't really
deserve a nicer way to write them. It's a code stink, it
deserve a long ugly name. (10 years ago I
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 12:57:03 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
@property is useful for setters. Now, IMHO setters are a code
stink anyway but sometimes they're the way to go. I have no
idea what it's supposed to do for getters (nor am I interested
in learning or retaining that information)
On 12/11/2018 4:51 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> Returning a reference
Wow, thats f*ck'n stupid! https://run.dlang.io/is/SAplYw
It's quite deliberate.
ref in C++ is a type constructor, but it's so special-cased to behave like a
storage class, it might as well be one. In D it is.
(For
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 10:45:39 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
No UFCS chain for templates.
No template lambdas.
You can write code like this today via library
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 14:38:25 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
@property: This was almost about to be awesome, but squabbling
amongst the D core team killed it.
Yes, the problem with @property is that it is neither correctly
implemented nor completely implemented. And to do the
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 20:44:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 15:34:28 UTC, Simen Kjærås
wrote:
I believe a reasonable case can be made for .! for UFCS - it's
currently invalid syntax and will not compile, and ! is the
symbol we already associate with template
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 10:45:39 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
Template lambdas and better eponymous template syntax are the two
big ones that I would really like.
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 15:34:28 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
I believe a reasonable case can be made for .! for UFCS - it's
currently invalid syntax and will not compile, and ! is the
symbol we already associate with template instantiation:
alias memberFunctions = __traits(allMembers,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:34:28PM +, Simen Kjærås via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
> I believe a reasonable case can be made for .! for UFCS - it's
> currently invalid syntax and will not compile, and ! is the symbol we
> already associate with template instantiation:
>
> alias
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:03:19PM +0100, Daniel Kozak via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:50 AM Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d-announce
><[1]digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
>
>
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:57:03PM +, Atila Neves via
Digitalmars-d-announce 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 Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:45:39AM +, Atila Neves via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
>
> https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
About UFCS chains for templates: totally agree! I found myself wishing
for
On 11-12-2018 12:10, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 11:08:29 UTC, user1234 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:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 14:38:25 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/11/18 5:45 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
Agree with most of this. UFCS for templates would be
On 12/11/18 5:45 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
Agree with most of this. UFCS for templates would be awesome, but the
syntax is trickier, since instantiation uses ! instead
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:50 AM Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d-announce <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
>
> https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
Eponymous templates - workaround
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 Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 13:42:03 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
One could say getters and particularly setters don't really
deserve a nicer way to write them. It's a code stink, it
deserve a long ugly name. (10 years ago I would be in the
other camp)
Can you please explain it in more
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 10:45:39 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
One thing that could be improved in this post is separating
things that can't reasonably be either
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 13:08:18 UTC, 0xEAB wrote:
Well, one can use it for optics :)
@property
{
int x()
{
return this._x;
}
void x(int value)
{
this._x = value;
}
}
One could say getters and particularly setters don't really
deserve a
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 Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 12:51:56 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
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:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
Nice!
Thanks!
I like the
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:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
If @property worked for a thing to
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 10:45:39 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
If @property worked for a thing to return a delegate, it would be
useful.
But n, we got worked
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 10:45:39 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
Nice!
I like the eponymous templates idea, though it might get
confusing with doubly nested
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 10:45:39 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
Really great article. I like the "UFCS for templates" idea.
12 years in and I still don't know what
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 11:08:29 UTC, user1234 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:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
I agree about template lambdas. But is
On Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 10:45:39 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
A few things that have annoyed me about writing D lately:
https://atilanevesoncode.wordpress.com/2018/12/11/what-d-got-wrong/
I agree about template lambdas. But is something that misses
really an error ?
84 matches
Mail list logo
