On Wed, 07 May 2014 18:51:58 +
Meta via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 14:40:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
My eyes... Oh, how that hurts readibily.
While I agree that
pure @safe @nogc nothrow
void
On Thu, 08 May 2014 07:29:08 +
bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
ultimately, this sort of
thing pretty much always ends up being highly subjective.
But please put the const/immutable of methods on the right:
struct Foo {
On Thu, 08 May 2014 09:30:38 +
bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
Unfortunately, making this consistent by doing something like
enforcing that
all function attributes go on the right would then be
inconsistent with other
Jonathan M Davis:
I still think that allowing const on the left is simply a
bad design decision.
I opened a request on this, and it was closed down :-)
Bye,
bearophile
On Thu, 08 May 2014 10:27:17 +
bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
I still think that allowing const on the left is simply a
bad design decision.
I opened a request on this, and it was closed down :-)
I know. Walter doesn't
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:59:58AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2014 07:29:08 +
bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
ultimately, this sort of thing pretty much always ends up being
On Thu, 8 May 2014 07:32:52 -0700
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:59:58AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2014 07:29:08 +
bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn
H. S. Teoh:
FWIW, for very long function signatures I write it this way:
const(T)[] myVeryLongFunction(T)(const(T)[] arr,
intx,
inty,
intz,
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:50:54PM +, bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
H. S. Teoh:
FWIW, for very long function signatures I write it this way:
const(T)[] myVeryLongFunction(T)(const(T)[] arr,
intx,
On Thursday, 8 May 2014 at 14:34:27 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
FWIW, for very long function signatures I write it this way:
const(T)[] myVeryLongFunction(T)(const(T)[] arr,
intx,
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 03:13:48PM +, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Thursday, 8 May 2014 at 14:34:27 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
FWIW, for very long function signatures I write it this way:
const(T)[] myVeryLongFunction(T)(const(T)[] arr,
So far in Rosettacode D entries I've kept a line length limit of
72 or 73 chars.
But now a little larger monitors are common, D UFCS chains are
common, and we also have longer function signatures with pure
nothrow @safe @nogc (that usually I put on a new line), so
keeping that line length
On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 13:25:55 UTC, bearophile wrote:
So far in Rosettacode D entries I've kept a line length limit
of 72 or 73 chars.
But now a little larger monitors are common, D UFCS chains are
common, and we also have longer function signatures with pure
nothrow @safe @nogc (that
On Wed, 07 May 2014 13:39:55 +
Meta via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote:
Maybe D programmers need to adopt a new convention for
annotations in the long term. Instead of:
void doSomething(int n) pure @safe @nogc nothrow
{
}
We should write:
pure @safe @nogc
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 01:25:52PM +, bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
So far in Rosettacode D entries I've kept a line length limit of 72 or
73 chars.
But now a little larger monitors are common, D UFCS chains are common,
and we also have longer function signatures with pure
On 5/7/2014 9:25 AM, bearophile wrote:
So far in Rosettacode D entries I've kept a line length limit of 72 or
73 chars.
But now a little larger monitors are common, D UFCS chains are common,
and we also have longer function signatures with pure nothrow @safe
@nogc (that usually I put on a new
On 05/07/2014 06:25 AM, bearophile wrote:
limit to about 80 chars.
I've never worked at a place where the limit was not 80. So, from my
point of view it is still the industry standard and I like it. :)
Ali
Nick Sabalausky:
72-73 chars would indeed be a pain. In my own code I like to
use a soft limit of 80, FWIW.
This is not regular code, it's an online wiki. The situation is a
little different. But I think 80 is now acceptable.
Bye,
bearophile
On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 18:51:59 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 14:40:37 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
My eyes... Oh, how that hurts readibily.
While I agree that
pure @safe @nogc nothrow
void doSomething(int n)
{
}
is quite ugly, it is really not
19 matches
Mail list logo
