On 2/24/2020 8:24 PM, FeepingCreature wrote:
The behavior of formatting strings is *currently*
deferred to a template (std.format and co). This lets us do important decisions
at compiletime, like writing the format string to a file or a string buffer
piecewise without allocating memory. Why
On 2/24/2020 2:45 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
My inference of the discussion about this in the n.g. was the templates would
be used so users could customize the behavior to be whatever they wanted.
By accepting a different type from string. In other words, an overload.
This means you can
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 22:11:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The semantics of an interpolated string must be defined by the
DIP, not deferred to some template. If the implementation of
those defined language features is done by a template, that is
an implementation choice, not part of the
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 17:43:41 UTC, Panke wrote:
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 02:52:04 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 February 2020 at 05:59:47 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
Hello everyone!
In a couple of days we should find out if The Dlang
Foundation was accepted as a mentoring
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 18:00:15 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
Limited spots, somebody had to go.
That’s the only reason they ever give for rejection AFAIK.
The full list is here and there are lots of them:
https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/organizations/?sp-page=2
I think gamefromscratch.com just pulled out a short list of ones that were
game-related there.
--bb
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:05 AM rikki cattermole via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On 2/24/20 5:45 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
My inference of the discussion about this in the n.g. was the
templates would be used so users could customize the behavior to be
whatever they wanted.
By accepting a different type from string. In other words, an overload.
I have a feeling
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 21:41:22 UTC, aliak wrote:
Does that mean no betterC support if it's in druntime?
It would actually still work there because there is no actual
code to link, just a compile-time definition to look up.
For example, the name `string` itself is a druntime
On 2/24/20 5:11 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/24/2020 1:45 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Our proposal is even more restrictive, as the template and its API are
actually defined by the language.
API is defined by the language, but not the behavior.
The language doesn't define my function's
On 2/24/2020 1:45 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Our proposal is even more restrictive, as the template and its API are actually
defined by the language.
API is defined by the language, but not the behavior.
No. It's overloading, not AST macros. How can an overload affect the AST other
On 2/24/20 4:45 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
i"$apples and $%{d}bananas" will be transformed into:
Of course that should have read i"$apples and ${%d}bananas"
-Steve
On 2/24/20 4:41 PM, aliak wrote:
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 21:23:43 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 20:55:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
and proposed a lowering to:
> i"your hex data is ${%02x}someByte"
>
> (_d_interpolated_string!("your hex data is ",
>
On 2/24/20 4:10 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/24/2020 12:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
How can you possibly arrive at this conclusion? We lower to templates
all the time.
The language is nowhere defined as lowering to specific templates. There
are indeed some lowerings to templates in
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 21:23:43 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 20:55:16 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
and proposed a lowering to:
> i"your hex data is ${%02x}someByte"
>
> (_d_interpolated_string!("your hex data is ",
> _d_interpolated_format_spec("%02x"))(),
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 20:55:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
and proposed a lowering to:
> i"your hex data is ${%02x}someByte"
>
> (_d_interpolated_string!("your hex data is ",
> _d_interpolated_format_spec("%02x"))(), someByte)
Do you understand that `_d_interpolated_string` and
On 2/24/2020 12:19 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
How can you possibly arrive at this conclusion? We lower to templates all the
time.
The language is nowhere defined as lowering to specific templates. There are
indeed some lowerings to templates in the implementation of the language, but
On 2/24/2020 11:45 AM, 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 semantics are not for D.
We
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 19:15:13 UTC, JN wrote:
On Sunday, 23 February 2020 at 16:20:09 UTC, Ahmet Sait wrote:
Out of curiosity, why would you need to triangulate polygons
instead of using stencil buffer? I'm assuming you're using
OpenGL (or something similar) since you talked about
On 2/24/20 2:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Having the compiler lower string interpolation to some hidden template
is - AST macros. We're not doing AST macros.
How can you possibly arrive at this conclusion? We lower to templates
all the time. By this definition all operator overloading in D is
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 2/24/2020 9:24 AM, Arine wrote:
No [...]
Using unprofessional language will result in your posts being deleted. Please
stop.
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 semantics are not for D.
We are NOT calling for this.
What, exactly,
Having the compiler lower string interpolation to some hidden template is - AST
macros. We're not doing AST macros.
Hidden user-defined semantics are not for D. Every language I'm familiar with
that supports it wound up with users creating their own completely undocumented
personal language
On Sunday, 23 February 2020 at 16:20:09 UTC, Ahmet Sait wrote:
Out of curiosity, why would you need to triangulate polygons
instead of using stencil buffer? I'm assuming you're using
OpenGL (or something similar) since you talked about your hobby
game. Any advantage of triangulating shapes?
On 2/24/20 12:31 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:41:16AM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
I will also note that we did something very similar with
switch(string), where prior to this the compiler did all the "heavy
lifting" of generating the
On 25/02/2020 6:43 AM, Panke wrote:
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 02:52:04 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 February 2020 at 05:59:47 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
Hello everyone!
In a couple of days we should find out if The Dlang Foundation was
accepted as a mentoring organization for Google
On 2020-02-24 09:51:16 +, Walter Bright said:
I talk it over with Atila after the review threads are done, then
decide. Voting is a terrible way to do engineering design, for many
reasons I can list if you like.
You don't need to, I'm not a fan of such a voting approach too. I just
On 2020-02-24 10:02:26 +, Mike Parker said:
The DIP review process is outlined here:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs
The final decision rests with the language maintainers. Now, that means
Walter and Atila.
Thanks, and sorry for my ignorance... How about adding a note who the
"language
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 02:52:04 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 February 2020 at 05:59:47 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
Hello everyone!
In a couple of days we should find out if The Dlang Foundation
was accepted as a mentoring organization for Google Summer of
Code 2020. If we get accepted,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:41:16AM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
> I will also note that we did something very similar with
> switch(string), where prior to this the compiler did all the "heavy
> lifting" of generating the code to convert strings into
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 09:51:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/24/2020 12:43 AM, Robert M. Münch wrote:
I mean, people spend a lot of time thinking, making
suggestions, etc. and the end result is: we now have nothing.
Which, IMO is the worst result for all.
Not totally. I was unable
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 16:22:22 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
Thanks for the detailed write-up, there are a lot of good
things here.
We talked about this in the other thread, too.
I doubt the one template here will be a big deal. My experience
is templates get bad when we use them in loops
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 15:41:16 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 2/24/20 4:38 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
There's also the practical question of template instantiations
and compile times even if the DIP that was being discussed
were to be modified in the way suggested.
I want to
On 2/24/20 4:38 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
There's also the practical question of template instantiations and
compile times even if the DIP that was being discussed were to be
modified in the way suggested.
I want to actually explore this.
There would be one template instantiation (probably) per
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 08:43:57 UTC, Robert M. Münch
wrote:
I mean, people spend a lot of time thinking, making
suggestions, etc. and the end result is: we now have nothing.
Which, IMO is the worst result for all.
We don't have nothing. There's an option value of not making a
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 10:02:26 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
I mean, people spend a lot of time thinking, making
suggestions, etc. and the end result is: we now have nothing.
Which, IMO is the worst result for all.
Not at all. In this case, as the DIP author, Walter could have
chosen to
On Monday, 24 February 2020 at 08:43:57 UTC, Robert M. Münch
wrote:
Out of curiosity, how and who makes such a decision? Is there a
voting? Is there a committee? Is there a structured pro/con
overview and highlight of blocking-points that need to be
resolved?
The DIP review process is
On 2/24/2020 12:43 AM, Robert M. Münch wrote:
Out of curiosity, how and who makes such a decision? Is there a voting? Is there
a committee? Is there a structured pro/con overview and highlight of
blocking-points that need to be resolved?
I talk it over with Atila after the review threads are
On Sunday, 23 February 2020 at 18:57:55 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Sunday, 23 February 2020 at 16:22:46 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
The decision was primarily influenced by the lack of consensus
over the implementation and the syntax demonstrated in the two
review threads.
That's not true, we
On 2020-02-23 16:22:46 +, Mike Parker said:
DIP 1027, "String Interpolation", has been rejected. The decision was
primarily influenced by the lack of consensus over the implementation
and the syntax demonstrated in the two review threads. As the DIP
author, Walter also rejected the
40 matches
Mail list logo
