On 6/13/2014 8:15 PM, Mathias LANG wrote:
On Friday, 13 June 2014 at 11:31:10 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
13-Jun-2014 04:31, Walter Bright пишет:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3655
Heh, I had been under the impression was already Boost. :P
It's probably nice to have
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 06:07:08 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I doubt it. First, it's the backend that's not technically OSI,
frontend was (apparently) GPL. Second, I can't imagine any
Linux distro rejecting GPL - they'd have to boot the kernel and
core utils, too.
Actually, the frontend
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 18:25:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/12/14, 6:34 AM, Dicebot wrote:
It was decided and 100% certain - virtual is not going in.
Need to
remove it from DMD before this release is out.
Yes please. -- Andrei
Since we didn't seem to have a pull request for
14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет:
On 6/13/2014 4:31 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim
to achieve
with that?
I do not want to come across as rude but from pragmatic standpoint it's
not interesting. I'm not opposing it
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 16:42:38 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
It's always nice to ask something on D NG, so many good answers
I can hardly choose whom to reply ;) So this is kind of
broadcast.
Yes, the answer seems spot on - reflection! But allow me to
retort.
I'm not talking about
On 6/14/14, 8:05 AM, Dicebot wrote:
Adoption - yes. Production usage - less so (though still important).
Difference between 1 second and 5 seconds is very important. Between 10
seconds and 1 minute - not so much.
Wait, what? -- Andrei
Nick Sabalausky, el 14 de June a las 02:06 me escribiste:
It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim
to achieve with that?
Make commercial companies contribute to DMD more freely?
There is no problem even with GPL.
Let them build and sell their own products out
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 15:25:11 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/14/14, 8:05 AM, Dicebot wrote:
Adoption - yes. Production usage - less so (though still
important).
Difference between 1 second and 5 seconds is very important.
Between 10
seconds and 1 minute - not so much.
Wait,
14-Jun-2014 19:05, Dicebot пишет:
On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 16:42:38 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
[snip]
Well, I'm biased by heavy-handed ones. Say I have a (no longer) secret
plan of doing a next-gen parser generator in D. Needless to say swaths
of non-trivial code generation. I'm all for
Dmitry Olshansky, el 14 de June a las 18:18 me escribiste:
14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет:
On 6/13/2014 4:31 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
It's probably nice to have less restrictive license, but what we aim
to achieve
with that?
I do not want to come across as rude but from
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:07:58 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
OK, as a side effect of this, this might encourage companies
not to use
D but to develop tools based on DMDFE, but companies that are
too lazy
or to BAD not to contribute the changes back, which I'm not
sure is such
a good
On 6/14/2014 3:58 AM, Joakim wrote:
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 06:07:08 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I doubt it. First, it's the backend that's not technically OSI,
frontend was (apparently) GPL. Second, I can't imagine any Linux
distro rejecting GPL - they'd have to boot the kernel and core
On 6/14/2014 10:18 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет:
3. Harmonization with usage of Boost in the runtime library
In other words simplify licensing, but again compiler and runtime
library do not have to have anything in common. There is no issue to
begin
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:17:34 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:07:58 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
OK, as a side effect of this, this might encourage companies
not to use
D but to develop tools based on DMDFE, but companies that are
too lazy
or to BAD not to
On 6/14/2014 11:03 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I'll take B, thanks. ;)
Right on, Nick.
And there's another advantage I neglected to mention - it allows DMDFE code to
be moved into Phobos without issues.
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 18:43:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
And there's another advantage I neglected to mention - it
allows DMDFE code to be moved into Phobos without issues.
I don't think Nick's argument is particularly compelling, but the
DDMD - Phobos connection definitely makes the
On 14 June 2014 19:03, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On 6/14/2014 10:18 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет:
3. Harmonization with usage of Boost in the runtime library
In other words simplify
14-Jun-2014 22:03, Nick Sabalausky пишет:
On 6/14/2014 10:18 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
14-Jun-2014 04:46, Walter Bright пишет:
3. Harmonization with usage of Boost in the runtime library
In other words simplify licensing, but again compiler and runtime
library do not have to have anything
On 6/14/2014 9:02 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Not really, the standard library is included into user code (because of
the templates), and that's the reason why it needs to be under a very
permissive license. The compiler, on the other hand, doesn't, and one
could agree is good to force people
On 6/14/2014 2:47 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 18:43:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
And there's another advantage I neglected to mention - it allows DMDFE
code to be moved into Phobos without issues.
I don't think Nick's argument is particularly compelling,
Granted,
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:07:58 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
No free license restrict commercial use. What using boost
enable is only
proprietary use, i.e. changing the DMD FE and keeping the
changes
private, even if you distribute the binary with the compiled
DMDFE. As I
said before,
Very nice, thanks. I'm looking forward to trying it out when I can find
the time. I'm not a big fan of bindings/wrappers.
Jim
As it happens I am writing a kind of DFIX on top of DScanner
right at the moment.
There are a few details to sort out. But I should have some small
demo pretty soon.
Regrards, Stefan
On 6/14/2014 2:52 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
14-Jun-2014 22:03, Nick Sabalausky пишет:
Scenario A:
--
Them: What license does D use?
Me: WAT? Language is not a product in itself.
While that's technically true, people often think of them as complete
products
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:00:39 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On 6/13/14, 10:15 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 6/13/2014 12:49 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Being able to negate the final:
label is nice to have but not a
Kapps, el 14 de June a las 18:19 me escribiste:
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:17:34 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:07:58 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
OK, as a side effect of this, this might encourage companies not
to use
D but to develop tools based on DMDFE, but
David Nadlinger, el 14 de June a las 18:47 me escribiste:
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 18:43:59 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
And there's another advantage I neglected to mention - it allows
DMDFE code to be moved into Phobos without issues.
I don't think Nick's argument is particularly
Joakim, el 14 de June a las 19:31 me escribiste:
On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 17:07:58 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
No free license restrict commercial use. What using boost enable
is only
proprietary use, i.e. changing the DMD FE and keeping the changes
private, even if you distribute the
On 6/14/2014 5:49 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
and it becomes a question of whether the familiarity of using
virtual instead of !final or final(false) (or whatever we come up with) is
worth adding another keyword
FWIW, I don't think virtual is all that valuable as a
29 matches
Mail list logo
