On Friday, 2 June 2017 at 14:17:10 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Congratulations are in order for Jared Hanson. Walter and
Andrei have approved his proposal to remove body as a keyword.
I've added a summary of their decision to the end of the DIP
for anyone who cares to read it. In short:
* body
On Friday, 2 June 2017 at 14:17:10 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
The "See the previous version" link at the end of the document is
currently broken and leads to a 404.
Thank you for your efforts and congratulations to Jared Hanson!
On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 20:06:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/3/2017 12:28 AM, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
Personally, making contracts less verbose and more powerful is
much higher on my list
We did discuss bouncing the DIP back with a request to revamp
it as a complete overhaul of
On Sunday, 4 June 2017 at 03:01:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/3/2017 5:20 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
There's currently a proposal in the PR queue to enhance the
contract syntax.
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/66
I know. That's as it should be!
Well that's encouraging! Thanks!
On 2017-06-04 01:10, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
Only new Phobos modules. DIPs have been discussed quite a bit in the
newsgroup, but their decision process has never been democratic. It's always
been a matter of talking Walter into it, which has usually led to stuff
never
On Sunday, June 04, 2017 05:56:15 Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 06:09:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 03, 2017 02:00:13 Jack Stouffer via
> >
> > Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> >> I recommend a longer deprecation cycle than
On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 06:09:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, June 03, 2017 02:00:13 Jack Stouffer via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
I recommend a longer deprecation cycle than usual for this, as
this will break many legacy libraries that don't get
maintained often. A period
On 6/3/2017 5:20 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 20:06:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/3/2017 12:28 AM, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
Personally, making contracts less verbose and more powerful is much higher on
my list
We did discuss bouncing the DIP back with a request
On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 23:43:10 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
If that's the only change, then we have a serious issue with
the text of this DIP. I think the DIP must be corrected with
the following change. Please review and then change the DIP
accordingly:
from: "Add do as an optional
On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 20:06:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/3/2017 12:28 AM, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
Personally, making contracts less verbose and more powerful is
much higher on my list
We did discuss bouncing the DIP back with a request to revamp
it as a complete overhaul of
On 06/02/2017 11:44 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> Yes, count me somewhat disappointed at merely changing `body` to `do`.
If that's the only change, then we have a serious issue with the text of
this DIP. I think the DIP must be corrected with the following change.
Please
On Saturday, June 03, 2017 17:16:52 Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
> On 2017-06-02 16:17, Mike Parker wrote:
> > Congratulations are in order for Jared Hanson. Walter and Andrei have
> > approved his proposal to remove body as a keyword. I've added a summary
> > of their
On 6/3/2017 12:28 AM, Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
Personally, making contracts less verbose and more powerful is much higher on my
list
We did discuss bouncing the DIP back with a request to revamp it as a complete
overhaul of the contract syntax, but decided that this DIP was about
On 06/03/2017 11:08 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/2/17 10:17 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
Congratulations are in order for Jared Hanson. Walter and Andrei have
approved his proposal to remove body as a keyword. I've added a
summary of their decision to the end of the DIP for anyone who cares
On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 07:01:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/2/2017 9:56 PM, MysticZach wrote:
Also Mike Parker seems to be doing a very good job in his
appointed position as DIP manager.
Yes, I am very happy with Mike's contributions on this, as well
as on his blog work. We are very
On 2017-06-02 16:17, Mike Parker wrote:
Congratulations are in order for Jared Hanson. Walter and Andrei have
approved his proposal to remove body as a keyword. I've added a summary
of their decision to the end of the DIP for anyone who cares to read it.
In short:
* body temporarily becomes a
On 6/2/17 10:17 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
Congratulations are in order for Jared Hanson. Walter and Andrei have
approved his proposal to remove body as a keyword. I've added a summary
of their decision to the end of the DIP for anyone who cares to read it.
In short:
* body temporarily becomes a
Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] wrote:
Personally, making contracts less verbose and more powerful is much
higher on my list (I don't remember ever needing to use 'body' as an
identifier, but I see why is it important for many domains)
yeah. i'm really tired to use `flesh` instead of it. and i have
On Friday, June 02, 2017 23:44:21 H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 04:56:40AM +, MysticZach via
> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...]
>
> > Yes, congratulations are in order. Although those of us who were
> > questioning the need for any keyword at all in
On Saturday, 3 June 2017 at 04:56:40 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Friday, 2 June 2017 at 14:17:10 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Congratulations are in order for Jared Hanson. Walter and
Andrei have approved his proposal to remove body as a keyword.
I've added a summary of their decision to the end of
On 6/2/2017 9:56 PM, MysticZach wrote:
Also Mike Parker seems to be doing a very good job in his appointed position as
DIP manager.
Yes, I am very happy with Mike's contributions on this, as well as on his blog
work. We are very fortunate to have Mike with us.
On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 04:56:40AM +, MysticZach via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
[...]
> Yes, congratulations are in order. Although those of us who were
> questioning the need for any keyword at all in `body`s place may be a
> little disappointed that it has merely been replaced with `do`,
On Saturday, June 03, 2017 02:00:13 Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> I recommend a longer deprecation cycle than usual for this, as
> this will break many legacy libraries that don't get maintained
> often. A period of two years sounds about right.
For Phobos, that _is_ the
On Friday, 2 June 2017 at 14:17:10 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Congratulations are in order for Jared Hanson. Walter and
Andrei have approved his proposal to remove body as a keyword.
I've added a summary of their decision to the end of the DIP
for anyone who cares to read it. In short:
* body
On Friday, 2 June 2017 at 14:17:10 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Congratulations, Jared!
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
Congratulations.
I recommend a longer deprecation cycle than usual for this, as
this will break many legacy libraries that don't get maintained
On Saturday, 31 December 2016 at 01:14:23 UTC, Arun
Chandrasekaran wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal
feedback.
PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
Initial merged document:
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal
feedback.
PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
Initial merged document:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
If you want the change to be
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 21:19:30 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 15:31:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 20:27:36 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 11:33:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
DIP 1003 is faddish. It would really be better to
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 15:31:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 20:27:36 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 11:33:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
DIP 1003 is faddish. It would really be better to have a
system that would allow any keyword to be used as
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 18:44:42 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 15:31:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 20:27:36 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 11:33:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
DIP 1003 is faddish. It would really be better
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 15:31:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 20:27:36 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 11:33:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
DIP 1003 is faddish. It would really be better to have a
system that would allow any keyword to be used as
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 20:27:36 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 11:33:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
DIP 1003 is faddish. It would really be better to have a
system that would allow any keyword to be used as identifier.
An escape system is the key.
It would also guarantee
On Thursday, 24 November 2016 at 14:06:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Personally, I don't care much about having body as a usable
symbol. It occasionally would be useful, but I can live without
it. However, I _do_ find it very annoying that it's required
for the function body when you have
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 11:33:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
DIP 1003 is faddish. It would really be better to have a system
that would allow any keyword to be used as identifier. An
escape system is the key.
It would also guarantee that the DIP would not be accepted. With
this DIP I aimed
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 11:33:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 07:52:28 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Basile B. via
Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com>
wrote:
[...]
Why is #line obsolete? I use it a lot
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 07:52:28 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Basile B. via
Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 13:49:09 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Monday, 28 November 2016 at 02:17:20 UTC,
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Basile B. via Digitalmars-d-announce <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 13:49:09 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 28 November 2016 at 02:17:20 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/24/2016 05:29 PM, WM.H wrote:
>>>
On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 13:49:09 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Monday, 28 November 2016 at 02:17:20 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On 11/24/2016 05:29 PM, WM.H wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal
feedback.
On Monday, 28 November 2016 at 02:17:20 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On 11/24/2016 05:29 PM, WM.H wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal
feedback.
PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
Initial merged
On 11/24/2016 05:29 PM, WM.H wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal feedback.
>>
>> PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
>> Initial merged document:
>>
On 11/21/2016 01:33 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> For this whole proposal to work out, though, I think the old syntax will
> have to stay supported without deprecations, because the amount of
> breakage (the deprecation path won't change that) will otherwise
> probably be huge. Making "body" optional
Am 25.11.2016 um 23:28 schrieb Timon Gehr:
On 25.11.2016 22:18, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 25.11.2016 um 12:39 schrieb Timon Gehr:
On 24.11.2016 10:24, Kagamin wrote:
I see no ambiguity even if parsing is not greedy.
import std.stdio;
pragma(mangle,"_D2tt4mainFZ3fooUZv")
void foo()in{
On 25.11.2016 22:18, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 25.11.2016 um 12:39 schrieb Timon Gehr:
On 24.11.2016 10:24, Kagamin wrote:
I see no ambiguity even if parsing is not greedy.
import std.stdio;
pragma(mangle,"_D2tt4mainFZ3fooUZv")
void foo()in{ assert(true); }{
writeln("Hello World!");
}
void
Am 25.11.2016 um 12:39 schrieb Timon Gehr:
On 24.11.2016 10:24, Kagamin wrote:
I see no ambiguity even if parsing is not greedy.
import std.stdio;
pragma(mangle,"_D2tt4mainFZ3fooUZv")
void foo()in{ assert(true); }{
writeln("Hello World!");
}
void main(){
static extern(C) void foo()in{
On 24.11.2016 10:24, Kagamin wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 at 20:24:13 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
Technically, there is an ambiguity (technically, ambiguity means that
there are multiple grammar derivations resulting in the same sentence).
Pragmatically, the greedy
On 24.11.2016 10:47, Kagamin wrote:
As to contracts without body we have
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4720
There is even this: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/3611
(Only works for interfaces and abstract classes though. Note that the
parser didn't change.)
On 24.11.2016 12:35, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 23.11.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Timon Gehr:
On 23.11.2016 11:15, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
scope (exit) { assert(n > 0); }
{
n += 1;
}
This is not a counterexample, because the block statement following the
scope statement is not part of
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal
feedback.
PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
Initial merged document:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
If you want the change to be
Indentation syntax
If we have an optional indentation syntax one day, those
anonymous looking scopes behind functions may become weird things.
int div(int a, int b)
in { assert(b != 0); }
{
return a / b;
}
indentation:
int div( int a, int b)
in:
assert( b != 0)
:
return a / b
On Saturday, November 19, 2016 21:16:15 Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal
> feedback.
>
> PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
> Initial merged document:
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
>
> If
Am 23.11.2016 um 21:32 schrieb Timon Gehr:
On 23.11.2016 11:15, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
scope (exit) { assert(n > 0); }
{
n += 1;
}
This is not a counterexample, because the block statement following the
scope statement is not part of the scope statement. I.e. if anything, it
As to contracts without body we have
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4720
On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 at 20:24:13 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
Technically, there is an ambiguity (technically, ambiguity
means that there are multiple grammar derivations resulting in
the same sentence).
Pragmatically, the greedy parse-the-body-if-possible-approach
will work.
I see no
On 23.11.2016 11:15, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
The more important point is that there is no precedent where {...}{...}
are two components of the same entity, it looks ugly even with the
space-wasting convention where '{' is put on its own line. Not all
contracts are one-liners like in your example
On 23.11.2016 11:15, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Function declarations don't necessarily have a body, but they might have
contracts. (This is currently not allowed for technical reasons, but it
should/will be.) But this is a rather minor point (usually you don't
want to have contracts without
Must be
T!( lots and lots of stuff ) f( lots and lots of
stuff )( lots and lots of stuff ) if ( lots
and lots of stuff )
int div(int a, int b)
in { assert(b != 0); }
do
{
return a / b;
}
On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 at 22:37:03 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
The more important point is that there is no precedent where
{...}{...} are two components of the same entity, it looks ugly
even with the space-wasting convention where '{' is put on its
own line. Not all contracts are one-liners
Am 22.11.2016 um 23:37 schrieb Timon Gehr:
On 22.11.2016 20:05, Meta wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 at 15:11:04 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 21.11.2016 um 22:19 schrieb Timon Gehr:
3 is ambiguous.
Can you give an example?
I'm curious as well. I considered that option 3 might be
On 22.11.2016 20:05, Meta wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 at 15:11:04 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 21.11.2016 um 22:19 schrieb Timon Gehr:
3 is ambiguous.
Can you give an example?
I'm curious as well. I considered that option 3 might be ambiguous but I
managed to convince myself that it
On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 at 15:11:04 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 21.11.2016 um 22:19 schrieb Timon Gehr:
3 is ambiguous.
Can you give an example?
I'm curious as well. I considered that option 3 might be
ambiguous but I managed to convince myself that it wouldn't be.
I'm guessing
Am 21.11.2016 um 22:19 schrieb Timon Gehr:
3 is ambiguous.
Can you give an example?
On Monday, 21 November 2016 at 20:59:32 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
How about this alternative ("in" and "out" blocks inside
function body):
void foo(int a)
{
in
{
assert (a > 0);
}
out
{
(ret) assert(ret > 0);
}
// body code
return a;
}
or for
On 19.11.2016 22:16, Dicebot wrote:
DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal feedback.
PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
Initial merged document:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
If you want the change to be approved and have ideas how to
On 21.11.2016 17:55, Piotrek wrote:
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal feedback.
PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
Initial merged document:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal
feedback.
PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
Initial merged document:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
If you want the change to be
Am 19.11.2016 um 22:16 schrieb Dicebot:
DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal feedback.
PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
Initial merged document:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
If you want the change to be approved and have ideas how
On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal
feedback.
Perhaps a good idea for D3...
On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:35:16 +1300, rikki cattermole wrote:
> I was thinking maybe option 3 but not have the body first.
>
> int func(int arg) {
> return 8 * arg;
> } in {
> assert(arg > 0);
> } out(int value) {
> assert(1);
> }
>
> Would break code but its a simple
On 20/11/2016 10:16 AM, Dicebot wrote:
DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal feedback.
PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
Initial merged document:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
If you want the change to be approved and have ideas how to
70 matches
Mail list logo
