On Sunday, 27 January 2013 at 15:24:23 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-27 13:35, alex wrote:
Well, not displaying the entire module but only displaying
resolved expressions. Dunno how to do this in a proper way -
only
via tooltips or also in an extra panel? Which would be the most
Small notification about the topic. No point to use old wiki for
those anymore I suppose.
I have created a pull request to update links on front page:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org/pull/242
On Sunday, 27 January 2013 at 23:14:23 UTC, F i L wrote:
alex wrote:
Morning D folks,
Implemented some new features concerning pre-compile time mixin
analysis and expression evaluation:
...
The new update seems very fast and stable. Trying the new
features, Thanks!
And if not, you know
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP22
There are two important issues with current protection attribute
design:
* Senseless name clashes between private and public symbols
* No way to specify internal linkage storage class
This DIP addresses both of them with two decoupled proposals:
* Change of private
On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 17:05:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP22
Error on that page (for C++):
public
Default one, if you can see symbol - you can access it
That is true only for structs. For classes, private is the
default.
See also this:
On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 17:18:27 UTC, eles wrote:
On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 17:05:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP22
Error on that page (for C++):
public
Default one, if you can see symbol - you can access it
That is true only for structs. For classes, private is
On 01/28/2013 06:05 PM, Dicebot wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP22
There are two important issues with current protection attribute
design:
* Senseless name clashes between private and public symbols
* No way to specify internal linkage storage class
This DIP addresses both of them with two
On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 17:36:58 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
Fixing private is enough.
Not a fan of the static thing at all. It is a great thing that
the static attribute actually has a consistent meaning in D.
mixin template X(){
static int x = 2;
}
class C{
mixin X; // x is a
On 2013-01-28 13:32, alex wrote:
K..Created an extra panel, and the actual mixin evaluation is working,
too. But now there are some last adjustments required to have the entire
mechanism as few annoying and performance-reducing as possible.
Cool, I guess it's time to give Mono-D another try.
On 2013-01-28 18:05, Dicebot wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP22
There are two important issues with current protection attribute
design:
* Senseless name clashes between private and public symbols
* No way to specify internal linkage storage class
This DIP addresses both of them with two
On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 20:20:42 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-28 13:32, alex wrote:
K..Created an extra panel, and the actual mixin evaluation is
working,
too. But now there are some last adjustments required to have
the entire
mechanism as few annoying and
alex wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/3i5R4Mn.png?1
A first shot - I guess in cases of having template parameters,
stuff should get 'expanded' to the final type, right? Well then
I still have to work on it. Anyway it also works for template
mixins and mixin statements. You just move the caret into
On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 21:14:07 UTC, F i L wrote:
alex wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/3i5R4Mn.png?1
A first shot - I guess in cases of having template parameters,
stuff should get 'expanded' to the final type, right? Well
then I still have to work on it. Anyway it also works for
template
alex wrote:
Yeah I just named it Expression evaluation - dunno why, just
thought that it could be used in a more general way than 'only'
for mixin insight.
Should I do an extra input box where you could type in
expressions and other things that could be evaluated? Just
thinking of a
alex wrote:
...
Oh, ps. On a completely unrelated note, Just wanted to say that
the new Active Profiler display is completely awesome. Thanks!
On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 00:48:24 UTC, F i L wrote:
...
That sounds very useful. It would be awesome if you could
evaluate the returned value of functions that already exist in
your program, or (like your picture shows) write simple test
functions to evaluate. Of course not all
16 matches
Mail list logo
