Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Saturday, 31 March 2018 at 00:25:47 UTC, Seb wrote: AFAICT Rust now has introduced the exactly same feature. It's quite interesting to see that there was no outcry by the community and it was universally liked: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2018/03/29/Rust-1.25.html

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Saturday, 31 March 2018 at 00:25:47 UTC, Seb wrote: On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 08:43:50 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 15:58:57 UTC, Joakim wrote: 17. Allow multiple selective imports from different modules in a single import statement I have a bad feeling

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Saturday, 31 March 2018 at 00:25:47 UTC, Seb wrote: On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 08:43:50 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 15:58:57 UTC, Joakim wrote: [...] No need to use it if you don't like it. It's particularly useful for small examples, localized imports

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 08:43:50 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 15:58:57 UTC, Joakim wrote: 17. Allow multiple selective imports from different modules in a single import statement I have a bad feeling that that one is going to be a source of a raft of bugs

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On 02/28/2018 11:48 AM, Patrick Schluter wrote: > Just for information. DWT doesn't build with 2.079 because of overloads > not allowed . I'm not good enough to do something about it but only > wanted to make people aware of it. I also opened an issue at the dwt > project.

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 10:49:03 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Glad to announce the first beta for the 2.079.0 release, ♥ to the 77 contributors for this release. [...] On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 10:49:03 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Just for information. DWT doesn't build with 2.079

2.079.0-rc.1 [Re: Beta 2.079.0]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Release candidate available now. http://dlang.org/changelog/2.079.0.html http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta - -Martin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEpzRNrTw0HqEtE8TmsnOBFhK7GTkFAlqV4EgACgkQsnOBFhK7

2.079.0-beta.2 [Re: Beta 2.079.0]

On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 10:49:03 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta http://dlang.org/changelog/2.079.0.html Second beta is published now. The website build server has some issues, so the website update is still stuck for a while. You can see a changelog

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 11:57:05 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Furthermore there remain various ideas that would avoid the original ambiguity. Whether such changes are worthwhile is up for discussion and would benefit from someone taking the lead. I really like psychoRabbit's array syntax

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Saturday, 24 February 2018 at 07:09:05 UTC, zabruk70 wrote: i don't understand whole theread. why all import must be written on one line? curent syntax very handy and readable. you must have understood the thread, cause you summarised it pretty well ;-)

Re: Beta 2.079.0

i don't understand whole theread. why all import must be written on one line? curent syntax very handy and readable.

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 16:03:56 UTC, Aurélien Plazzotta wrote: Perhaps, we could use Backus-Naur notation, as it is already widely known into formal documents all over the globe, like the following: import std.stdio, std.whatever{this, that}, std.somethingelse, std.grr{wtf}; That

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 23:46:02 UTC, Norm wrote: Well, D is already a compiled scripting language :) technically (and otherwise) that is not correct...thank god! lets keep it that way.

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 18:13:51 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 13:42:45 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 12:06:23 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote: Absolutely. D scripting is the trojan horse that enables introduction of it in hostile

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 10:48:10 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 09:48:33 UTC, Norm wrote: This import feature and surrounding discussion I couldn't care less about ... I actually spend far more time reading large chunks of code, than writing code, and I

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On 2/23/18 6:57 AM, Martin Nowak wrote: On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 15:58:57 UTC, Joakim wrote: 17. Allow multiple selective imports from different modules in a single import statement Let me hopefully conclude this discussion :). We have an existing ambiguity in the language since at

Re: lld-link.exe [in: Re: Beta 2.079.0]

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 19:06:42 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 18:13:01 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 20:17:05 UTC, Andre Pany wrote: You also need to install VC++ 2015 redistributable to run lld-link.exe. The x86 one btw. Also

Re: lld-link.exe [in: Re: Beta 2.079.0]

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 18:13:01 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 20:17:05 UTC, Andre Pany wrote: You also need to install VC++ 2015 redistributable to run lld-link.exe. The x86 one btw. Also [18510 – [Beta 2.079] lld-link.exe fails to open obj file in

lld-link.exe [in: Re: Beta 2.079.0]

On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 20:17:05 UTC, Andre Pany wrote: You also need to install VC++ 2015 redistributable to run lld-link.exe. Let's see if we can lift that requirement until the release. [18509 – [Beta 2.079] lld-link.exe needs

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 13:42:45 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 12:06:23 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote: Absolutely. D scripting is the trojan horse that enables introduction of it in hostile environment. Runnable compiled source code is nice. scripting

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 17:47:08 UTC, Kagamin wrote: auto result = foo(), bar(); Doesn't look like it works. --- int f(int a){ return a; } int main() { int a=f(0),f(1); //doesn't compile return 0; } --- int f(int a){ return a; } int main() { int a; a=f(0),f(1);

Re: Beta 2.079.0

auto result = foo(), bar(); Doesn't look like it works. --- int f(int a){ return a; } int main() { int a=f(0),f(1); //doesn't compile return 0; } --- int f(int a){ return a; } int main() { int a; a=f(0),f(1); assert(a==1); //fails return 0; } ---

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 02:20:41 UTC, psychotyicRabbit wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 01:57:37 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 11:15:35 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: import std.rabbit [food, water], std.house, std.family [carer]; Also, D is pretty

Re: Beta 2.079.0

https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/1282 github shows me just two changes in makefiles and nothing else, need to find where the code comes from.

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 01:02:59 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality, because this is certainly easier to grasp than https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/1282 (https://forum.dlang.org/post/mjsma6$196h$1...@digitalmars.com) If nobody opposes,

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 00:05:59 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: The main use-case for craming multiple imports into a line is not libraries but scripting, examples, and maybe unit tests. Those are cases when selective imports shouldn't be used. experimental.scripting was introduced to reduce

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 13:38:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 2/23/18 8:13 AM, jmh530 wrote: What if you have something like import std.stdio, std.conv : to, parse; and there is a module at the top-level named parse? Then you have to import it on a separate line, or import it

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 11:24:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Friday, February 23, 2018 10:57:21 Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 10:48:10 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: > If D just wants to become a compiled scripting > language...good

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 03:26:11 UTC, Seb wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 03:20:22 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: compared to the current change in beta. FWIW the change is almost gone from the beta: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7939 Glad its *almost* gone. That change

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 12:06:23 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote: Absolutely. D scripting is the trojan horse that enables introduction of it in hostile environment. Runnable compiled source code is nice. scripting languages is reinventing computer science.. only really badly.

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On 2/23/18 8:13 AM, jmh530 wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 11:57:05 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: A newcomer to D could rightfully conclude that comma is a module separator and the following is the correct syntax to import multiple symbols.     import std.stdio, std.conv : to, std.conv :

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 11:57:05 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 15:58:57 UTC, Joakim wrote: Given the effort required for a language change, it's seductive to streamline seemingly small changes, but it certainly increases the risk of design mistakes, thanks

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 11:57:05 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: A newcomer to D could rightfully conclude that comma is a module separator and the following is the correct syntax to import multiple symbols. import std.stdio, std.conv : to, std.conv : parse; What if you have

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 11:57:05 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: But certainly anything in that direction requires time and research, which I don't have for that topic. Also new syntax would likely be met with strong resistance due to the amount of induced churn.

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 09:48:33 UTC, Norm wrote: [snip] On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 04:06:23 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: Third, making D more and more like a quick scripting/hacking language (by removing or hiding so called 'noise', is not a good idea in my opinion. That too

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 15:58:57 UTC, Joakim wrote: 17. Allow multiple selective imports from different modules in a single import statement Let me hopefully conclude this discussion :). We have an existing ambiguity in the language since at least dmd 1.0. This is unfortunate but

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, February 23, 2018 10:57:21 Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 10:48:10 UTC, psychoticRabbit > > wrote: > > If D just wants to become a compiled scripting language...good > > luck to it. > > That's certainly not the goal, but as with every

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 10:48:10 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: If D just wants to become a compiled scripting language...good luck to it. That's certainly not the goal, but as with every tool people become very familiar with, it's used creatively for things other than initially

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 09:48:33 UTC, Norm wrote: This import feature and surrounding discussion I couldn't care less about ... I actually spend far more time reading large chunks of code, than writing code, and I certainly do NOT want to spend extra time deciphering imports, due to

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 09:48:33 UTC, Norm wrote: Ability to quickly script in D was a big selling point for D at my workplace, I'd say *the* feature that got uninterested developers listening and trying the language. Being able to replace their Python scripts with a fast native

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, February 23, 2018 10:08:58 Mike Franklin via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 09:18:33 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > > On 2018-02-19 11:49, Martin Nowak wrote: > >> Glad to announce the first beta for the 2.079.0 release, ♥ to > >> the 77 > >> contributors

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 09:18:33 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2018-02-19 11:49, Martin Nowak wrote: Glad to announce the first beta for the 2.079.0 release, ♥ to the 77 contributors for this release. The following is a regression that breaks DWT: extern (C) void foo(int) { } extern

Re: Beta 2.079.0

[snip] On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 04:06:23 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: Third, making D more and more like a quick scripting/hacking language (by removing or hiding so called 'noise', is not a good idea in my opinion. That too seemed to be a motivator for at some aspect of the change.

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On 2018-02-19 11:49, Martin Nowak wrote: Glad to announce the first beta for the 2.079.0 release, ♥ to the 77 contributors for this release. The following is a regression that breaks DWT: extern (C) void foo(int) { } extern (C) void foo(double) { } The above used to compile but now results

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 03:26:11 UTC, Seb wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 03:20:22 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: compared to the current change in beta. FWIW the change is almost gone from the beta: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7939 I'm glad common sense seems to be winning

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 03:20:22 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: compared to the current change in beta. FWIW the change is almost gone from the beta: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7939

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 02:31:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: We deprecate stuff when we need to, but every time we deprecate something, it breaks code (even if it's not immediate breakage), so the benefits that come from a deprecation need to be worth the breakage that it causes. Every

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 02:31:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: We deprecate stuff when we need to, but every time we deprecate something, it breaks code (even if it's not immediate breakage), so the benefits that come from a deprecation need to be worth the breakage that it causes.

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 01:53:45 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 01:16:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: I can sympathize with wanting to avoid bikeshedding, but almost no one who has posted thinks that this is a good idea. This was meant for the discussion of a

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, February 23, 2018 02:20:41 psychotyicRabbit via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > Also, D is pretty good a depracating stuff, so why not deprecate > the current way of imports, and gradually move to something (that > resolves issues): > > e.g. > > import std.stdio, std.whatever[this,

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 01:57:37 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 11:15:35 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: import std.rabbit [food, water], std.house, std.family [carer]; What about the million lines of existing code using import std.stdio : writeln, writefln; I

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 11:15:35 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: import std.rabbit [food, water], std.house, std.family [carer]; What about the million lines of existing code using import std.stdio : writeln, writefln;

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 01:16:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: I can sympathize with wanting to avoid bikeshedding, but almost no one who has posted thinks that this is a good idea. This was meant for the discussion of a new syntax for selective imports like `import mod : { sym1, sym2

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 00:05:59 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: - practical examples of this usage are hardly confusing import std.stdio : writeln, std.algorithm : find; I agree that that's not so bad, though it's more likely to look like this: import std.stdio : writeln, stdin, stderr,

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 01:34:54 UTC, Rubn wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 00:05:59 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: - each imported module should be on it's own line That's your opinion, my opinion is that importing 6 symbols from 6 different modules for a tiny cli tool sucks and

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 00:05:59 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: - each imported module should be on it's own line That's your opinion, my opinion is that importing 6 symbols from 6 different modules for a tiny cli tool sucks and bloats code example. So the alternative is to not use

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 01:17:26 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 01:02:59 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Interesting, you have a good example? yeah..phobos. I learn most about the various phobos libraries, and their usefulness, from looking at the various

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 01:02:59 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Interesting, you have a good example? yeah..phobos. I learn most about the various phobos libraries, and their usefulness, from looking at the various imports that phobos modules use. If they just used import *; I'd have

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, February 23, 2018 00:05:59 Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > The main use-case for craming multiple imports into a line is not > libraries but scripting, examples, and maybe unit tests. > And indeed the changelog entry could have been a bit clearer and > easier to grasp.

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 00:41:58 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 00:05:59 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Isn't that an argument? Of course it is :). I tried to list the arguments I found in the thread and replied to them, trying to lead a proper discussion. -

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 00:05:59 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On the other side please note that: Forgot one important point: - practially unqualified modules are extremely rare, so the tiny ambiguous grammar case is hardly relevant.

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 00:47:10 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 00:14:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/22/2018 1:56 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: I'm a little disappointed that a change like this got in, whereas something that's actually helpful, like DIP 1009, is

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 00:14:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/22/2018 1:56 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: I'm a little disappointed that a change like this got in, whereas something that's actually helpful, like DIP 1009, is sitting in limbo. It's always true that trivia attracts far more

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Friday, 23 February 2018 at 00:05:59 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Unfortunately it's a bit hard to find arguments in the discussion below, would have been cool if there were a few well argumented comments instead dozens of +1s. Go back and read all of this thread, properly. - this grammar

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On 2/22/2018 1:56 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: I'm a little disappointed that a change like this got in, whereas something that's actually helpful, like DIP 1009, is sitting in limbo. It's always true that trivia attracts far more attention and far more emotion than issues that require effort to

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 08:43:50 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Regarding the sheer amount of discussion I want to note that this was primarily seen as a regularization of the existing grammar. import mod1, mod2 : sym1, sym2; Certainly other languages have decided on a clearer syntax for

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 09:42:13PM +, Zoadian via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 10:42:33 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:30:44 psychoticRabboit via [...] > > > what about something like this then? > > > > > > import

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 10:42:33 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:30:44 psychoticRabboit via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 09:42:47 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: > I'm going to a) never write these imports and b) pretend this >

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On 2/22/2018 2:20 AM, Temtaime wrote: Fuck selective imports. Use of such words is not appreciated here. Please use professional demeanor.

Re: Beta 2.079.0

auto result = foo(), bar(); Does this compile? In variable declaration statement comma already has meaning as separator of declarators. Does it apply to enums too? This is difficult to parse.

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 02:06:20AM +, psychoticRabbit via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 at 16:58:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 02:46:56PM +, psychoticRabbit via > > Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...] > > > Syntax is EVERYTHING. It

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 08:52:21 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote: you should also mention an important point: current syntax disallows importing a simple module foo (with no package), eg: import std.stdio:write,foo; // there's no way to specify a module `foo` import std.stdio:write & foo;

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On 2/22/18 3:30 AM, psychoticRabboit wrote: On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 09:42:47 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: I'm going to a) never write these imports and b) pretend this feature doesn't exist. Atila what about something like this then? import std.stdio; std.conv: to, from;

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 13:35:00 UTC, aliak wrote: Given that comma is implemented already, and barring a revert, can we maybe somewhat unbreak it by allowing: import mod1: write, .mod2; So leading dot to say it's a module (if not fully qualified) leading dots?? grr!! I doubt

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 13:51:18 UTC, Seb wrote: On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 13:35:00 UTC, aliak wrote: barring a revert, Who says we can't revert it? https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7939 On the contrary, imho if it's so controversial it should be reverted now, s.t. it

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 15:58:57 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 15:45:30 UTC, bachmeier wrote: On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 10:49:03 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Glad to announce the first beta for the 2.079.0 release, ♥ to the 77 contributors for this release.

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 13:35:00 UTC, aliak wrote: barring a revert, Who says we can't revert it? https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7939 On the contrary, imho if it's so controversial it should be reverted now, s.t. it doesn't accidentally end up in 2.079 and we would be stuck

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 08:52:21 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote: you should also mention an important point: current syntax disallows importing a simple module foo (with no package), eg: import std.stdio:write,foo; // there's no way to specify a module `foo` import std.stdio:write & foo;

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 10:49:03 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Windows got a new experimental toolchain based on the lld linker and MinGW import libraries. This will hopefully replace OMF in the long-term without requiring heavy VC installations. Of course VC will remain the primary

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 10:42:46 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote: I still believe it should be something more readable: import std.stdio, std.conv : [ to, from ], std.algorithm : doSomething, std.whatever; yeah.. nice.. though we can make that even easier by dropping ":" i.e. import

Re: Beta 2.079.0

I still believe it should be something more readable: import std.stdio, std.conv : [ to, from ], std.algorithm : doSomething, std.whatever; On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:30 AM, psychoticRabboit via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Thursday, 22 February 2018

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 10:07:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, February 22, 2018 09:54:17 Uknown via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 09:48:20 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > [...] Which is why we should not let it pass. Why didn't this

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:30:44 psychoticRabboit via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 09:42:47 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: > > I'm going to a) never write these imports and b) pretend this > > feature doesn't exist. > > > > Atila > > what about something like

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 09:42:47 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: I'm going to a) never write these imports and b) pretend this feature doesn't exist. Atila what about something like this then? import std.stdio; std.conv: to, from; std.algorithm: doSomething; std.whatever; just one

Re: Beta 2.079.0

Fuck selective imports. If you have tons of functions with same name it's your naming scheme mistake. If it makes compilation time slower, then fuck compiler, not import std;

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 09:54:17 Uknown via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 09:48:20 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > On Thursday, February 22, 2018 09:42:47 Atila Neves via > > > > Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 09:48:20 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, February 22, 2018 09:42:47 Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 22:54:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:19:03PM +, John Gabriele via >

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 09:42:47 Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 22:54:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:19:03PM +, John Gabriele via > > Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...] > > > >> Thanks. Is the point to be able

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 22:54:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:19:03PM +, John Gabriele via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...] Thanks. Is the point to be able to string a bunch of selective imports together, as in: import pkg.mod1 : sym1, sym2, pkg.mod2 :

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 at 08:42:12 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: import std.stdio:write,writeln,writefln & std.array:join,split,replicate; vs import std.stdio:write,writeln,writefln,std.array:join,split,replicate; and the rule would be simple. you can import modules on a single

Re: Beta 2.079.0

you should also mention an important point: current syntax disallows importing a simple module foo (with no package), eg: import std.stdio:write,foo; // there's no way to specify a module `foo` import std.stdio:write & foo; // ok I don't care whether it's `|` or `&` but `,` as a module separator

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 18:10:51 rjframe via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:46:56 +, psychoticRabbit wrote: > > how on earth can anyone approve, that syntax like that, can become part > > of the D Programming language? > > > > I'm really bewildered. > > > >

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 at 10:54:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 10:24:41 Paolo Invernizzi via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 at 10:15:48 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > [...] Was there a DIP for that? No, and I have no

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 at 18:10:51 UTC, rjframe wrote: On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:46:56 +, psychoticRabbit wrote: [snip] But it likely shouldn't be used in "real" applications; in particular, I think it would be nice for the Phobos style guide to restrict/disallow its use. But whats

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 at 16:58:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 02:46:56PM +, psychoticRabbit via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...] Syntax is EVERYTHING. It can make or break a language. And semantics doesn't matter. :-D T assert("easy on the eyes" ==

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:46:56 +, psychoticRabbit wrote: > how on earth can anyone approve, that syntax like that, can become part > of the D Programming language? > > I'm really bewildered. > > Syntax is EVERYTHING. It can make or break a language. It does make sense in moderation for quick

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 02:46:56PM +, psychoticRabbit via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...] > Syntax is EVERYTHING. It can make or break a language. And semantics doesn't matter. :-D T -- Let's not fight disease by killing the patient. -- Sean 'Shaleh' Perry

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 at 15:33:02 UTC, Joakim wrote: I thought about chiming in on that PR when it was open, but didn't because the vote was split at 5-5 and I thought it wouldn't get merged. Also, I'm not against the idea in principle, but I do wish you'd chosen better syntax,

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 08:43:50 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: On Monday, 19 February 2018 at 15:58:57 UTC, Joakim wrote: 17. Allow multiple selective imports from different modules in a single import statement I have a bad feeling that that one is going to be a source of a raft of bugs

Re: Beta 2.079.0

On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 at 10:15:48 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 10:04:01 Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Tuesday, 20 February 2018 at 22:54:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: > Yeah, personally I'd avoid writing it that way too. There's no other way

  1   2   >