Re: How to enable verbose logging during application run
Thankyou.
Re: how to make private class member private
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 23:54:22 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 21:33:01 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 21:22:44 UTC, arturg wrote: maybe extend that to a list of types? this is basically what C++ friend does and D was trying to avoid the complexity of Really, the complexity of 'friend' comes from people abusing it. In D, I would prefer no breaking change here. Leave private as it is. Just a simple attribute that only applies within a class, and only to private members within that class. @strictly private string firstName_; Nothing outside of the class, not even the module, can access this now. It's all encapsulated. It breaks nothing (AFAIK). It's very clear what the intention is here. It's an easy attribute to remember. It restores the principle of class enscapsulation within a module, for when it's really needed. Now D programmers would have the best of both worlds. Why do you insist that you know how everything works and you are the harbinger of truth. The fact is, you don't know squat about what you are talking about and you just want to conform D to your naive ignorant understanding of programming so you don't get confused rather than learning and accepting D for what it does, which is do everything better than C/C++. You keep trying to make it in to C/C++, the the hell don't you just go use C/C++ then? No one is going to listen to you. Your ignorance is pointed out by many that have used D far longer than you have and you think you can come in and point out all the things wrong without having any experience with it. The fact is, the creator of the class is also the creator of the module.. and preventing him from having full access to the class is ignorant. He doesn't need to encapsulate himself. Encapsulation is ONLY meant to reduce dependencies. If the programmer, probably someone like you, can't trust himself to understand his own code then he shouldn't be coding. If you don't like it, just write one class per module and don't have any free functions... it solves your problem and it doesn't use your shitty "solution". No one is forcing you to access your class outside the class but inside the module. The fact is you are ignorant of what you speak about and that is 99% of the problem. If you don't like how D does it, go use another language that does it the way you "think"(if you could call it that) is correct. Many of the thing D does is learned from the mistakes of C/C++... and for you to pretend that your insignificant self who has never wrote a compiler much less read the specs has a clue about the ramifications of the changes is moronic. Your only reason for not liking it is because you "don't like it"... how moronic. "Mmm.. I don't think I like it. I feel you should be able to make a member of a class, private, regardless of where the class is located. This seems to break the concept of class encapsulation. No. I don't like it at all. " Yet you have no clue... You "learned"(brainwashed" that encapsulation means private members of classes cannot be accessed from C++ and because D provides a more complex rule that you can't seem to grasp(but which is very simple and no other human that has used D has had issues with) you say that D is wrong rather than that you or C++ is wrong. The fact is, you are a moron. It's not because of this one issue but because of your mentality of which this is just an example. I'm sure you have the same thing with many issues in your life and you go strutting around like you own the place telling everyone what is wrong with how things are done when you yourself have no clue. Want me to prove it to you? You say: "I feel you should be able to make a member of a class, private, regardless of where the class is located. This seems to break the concept of class encapsulation. " Yet, really, what you mean is that it breaks the concept of class that you learned in programming 101 that had to do with C++. You don't have a clue about logic and qualification. Maybe you are confused and you thought D was C++? You know, if you go to Rome... ah never mind, you won't get it...
Re: how to make private class member private
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 21:33:01 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 21:22:44 UTC, arturg wrote: maybe extend that to a list of types? this is basically what C++ friend does and D was trying to avoid the complexity of Really, the complexity of 'friend' comes from people abusing it. In D, I would prefer no breaking change here. Leave private as it is. Just a simple attribute that only applies within a class, and only to private members within that class. @strictly private string firstName_; Nothing outside of the class, not even the module, can access this now. It's all encapsulated. It breaks nothing (AFAIK). It's very clear what the intention is here. It's an easy attribute to remember. It restores the principle of class enscapsulation within a module, for when it's really needed. Now D programmers would have the best of both worlds.
Re: How to enable verbose logging during application run
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 22:37:36 +, Venkat wrote: > Sorry posted the above message by accident. > > I am running a vibed app using `dub` command. But it produces no logging > what so ever when requests are made. The server returns http error codes > but it doesn't log anything to the console. How do I make it show me a > lot more detail than it is doing now ? > > For example, in a Java webapp, one would change the logging level to > debug if a logging library is configured. vibe.core.log has a setLogLevel function. http://vibed.org/api/vibe.core.log/setLogLevel http://vibed.org/api/vibe.core.log/LogLevel Also, the URLRouter class has a getAllRoutes method; if needed, writing that to the terminal can verify the routes are what you expect.
Re: How to enable verbose logging during application run
Sorry posted the above message by accident. I am running a vibed app using `dub` command. But it produces no logging what so ever when requests are made. The server returns http error codes but it doesn't log anything to the console. How do I make it show me a lot more detail than it is doing now ? For example, in a Java webapp, one would change the logging level to debug if a logging library is configured.
How to enable verbose logging during application run
I am running a vibed app using `dub` command. But it produces no logging what so ever when re
Re: how to make private class member private
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 21:22:44 UTC, arturg wrote: maybe extend that to a list of types? this is basically what C++ friend does and D was trying to avoid the complexity of
Re: how to make private class member private
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 14:16:19 UTC, bauss wrote: I don't like the name @deny, personally I would rather see the private attribute changed to something like: private(true) // The member is oly visible to its parent. private(false) // Same as just "private", visible to whole module. Could be specialized to something like: private(this) // Same as private(true) private(module) // Same as private(false) maybe extend that to a list of types? private(typeof(this), Foo, Bar) would mean only typeof(this), Foo and Bar from the same module have access.
Re: Can't add ubytes together to make a ubyte... bug or feature?
On 03/17/2018 11:36 AM, Jonathan wrote: `(a+b)&0xff` What is this syntax?! Could you give a link to this in the D documentation? Here is my description of bitwise AND: http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/bit_operations.html#ix_bit_operations.&,%20bitwise%20and The section titled "Masking" on the same page explains what &0xff part means. I am not even sure how to look it up... I hope my index section is useful in such cases. Just search for the & character there: http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/ix.html Yes, there are many meanings of the & character but I think it's still useful. :) Ali
Re: Can't add ubytes together to make a ubyte... bug or feature?
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 18:56:55 UTC, Dominikus Dittes Scherkl wrote: On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 18:36:35 UTC, Jonathan wrote: On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 23:36:14 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 22:12:06 UTC, Soviet Friend wrote: I don't care if my computer needs to do math on a 4 byte basis, I'm not writing assembly. x86 actually doesn't need to do math that way, if you were writing assembly, it would just work. This is just an annoying rule brought over by C. Can I prevent the initial implicit casts? Nope, though you can help tell the compiler that you want it to fit there by doing stuff like ubyte a = 200; ubyte b = 100; ubyte c = (a+b)&0xff; or something like that, so the expression is specifically proven to fit in the byte with compile time facts. `(a+b)&0xff` What is this syntax?! Could you give a link to this in the D documentation? I am not even sure how to look it up... & is the normal binary and operation, same in C, C++, Java, ... 0xFF is a hexadecimal constant (255), which the compiler knows fit in an ubyte So what do you not understand about this syntax? I guess he doesn't understand bitwise operations. Also don't you mean bitwise and?
Re: Can't add ubytes together to make a ubyte... bug or feature?
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 18:36:35 UTC, Jonathan wrote: On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 23:36:14 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 22:12:06 UTC, Soviet Friend wrote: I don't care if my computer needs to do math on a 4 byte basis, I'm not writing assembly. x86 actually doesn't need to do math that way, if you were writing assembly, it would just work. This is just an annoying rule brought over by C. Can I prevent the initial implicit casts? Nope, though you can help tell the compiler that you want it to fit there by doing stuff like ubyte a = 200; ubyte b = 100; ubyte c = (a+b)&0xff; or something like that, so the expression is specifically proven to fit in the byte with compile time facts. `(a+b)&0xff` What is this syntax?! Could you give a link to this in the D documentation? I am not even sure how to look it up... & is the normal binary and operation, same in C, C++, Java, ... 0xFF is a hexadecimal constant (255), which the compiler knows fit in an ubyte So what do you not understand about this syntax?
Re: Can't add ubytes together to make a ubyte... bug or feature?
On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 23:36:14 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 22:12:06 UTC, Soviet Friend wrote: I don't care if my computer needs to do math on a 4 byte basis, I'm not writing assembly. x86 actually doesn't need to do math that way, if you were writing assembly, it would just work. This is just an annoying rule brought over by C. Can I prevent the initial implicit casts? Nope, though you can help tell the compiler that you want it to fit there by doing stuff like ubyte a = 200; ubyte b = 100; ubyte c = (a+b)&0xff; or something like that, so the expression is specifically proven to fit in the byte with compile time facts. `(a+b)&0xff` What is this syntax?! Could you give a link to this in the D documentation? I am not even sure how to look it up...
Re: Convert output range to input range
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 17:16:40 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Friday, 16 March 2018 at 07:57:04 UTC, John Chapman wrote: I need to write to a range created with outputRangeObject, then read from it. Is there a way to convert it to an input range? Could you illustrate your problem a bit further? I'm trying to replace the old std.streams in my app with ranges. I'm interfacing with a networking library to which I supply a callback that when invoked provides the requested data. I write that data to an output range, but later on I need to read that data from the range too - which of course you can't do. So what I'm looking for is the range-based equivalent of a MemoryStream.
Re: how to make private class member private
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 15:02:21 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 14:16:19 UTC, bauss wrote: I don't like the name @deny . how about: @reallyis private string firstName_; mmm..perhaps not... then how about... @strictly private string firstName_; Still introduces a new attribute. D already has a lot of attributes and it goes against how every other attribute for visibility works. That's why my suggestion would work better, because the package attribute already works like that.
Re: Convert output range to input range
On Friday, 16 March 2018 at 07:57:04 UTC, John Chapman wrote: I need to write to a range created with outputRangeObject, then read from it. Is there a way to convert it to an input range? Could you illustrate your problem a bit further? In the literal sense, converting from an output to an input range would require using coroutines (where .empty() blocks until the output range has supplied the next element). However, I suspect what you want to do is to write results from the output range to a buffer (e.g. an Appender) first, and after that – or possibly every so often in chunks – process the results further? — David
Re: How to build static linked executable
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 14:44:42 UTC, zunkree wrote: Hi, Is there a way to build static linked executable with dub for vibe-d based app? Regards, zunkree Yes, use -static Here's how we build the DTour: https://github.com/dlang-tour/core/blob/master/dub.sdl
Re: How to build static linked executable
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 15:42:06 UTC, Seb wrote: On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 14:44:42 UTC, zunkree wrote: Hi, Is there a way to build static linked executable with dub for vibe-d based app? Regards, zunkree Yes, use -static Here's how we build the DTour: https://github.com/dlang-tour/core/blob/master/dub.sdl I forgot to mention that -static is an LDC-only flag, but you wouldn't want to use DMD for an optimized application anyhow.
Re: how to make private class member private
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 14:16:19 UTC, bauss wrote: I don't like the name @deny . how about: @reallyis private string firstName_; mmm..perhaps not... then how about... @strictly private string firstName_;
How to build static linked executable
Hi, Is there a way to build static linked executable with dub for vibe-d based app? Regards, zunkree
Re: how to make private class member private
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 11:08:27 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 09:18:13 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote: It's a language design decision as to whether a particular feature is worth supporting. I would like this feature too though. I'm not sure how much compiler complexity would be added by having another visibility modifier. D could add an new attribute to class members: @deny A @deny attribute can come before a classes private member, to indicate that the private member is to remain private, even within the module. Cause sure, it nice to be among friends, but you don't want your friends knowing every thought that is going through your mind! Sometimes, somethings, just need to remain private. @deny private string _userName; now... _userName is no longer accessible at the module level, and class encapsulation is restored. If had I any clue about compilers, I'd think this through more ;-) I don't like the name @deny, personally I would rather see the private attribute changed to something like: private(true) // The member is oly visible to its parent. private(false) // Same as just "private", visible to whole module. Could be specialized to something like: private(this) // Same as private(true) private(module) // Same as private(false) That way it can be introduced without breaking changes and looks cleaner since it wouldn't be yet another attribute. Really it's just an extension to the already existing attribute. This feature should be relatively easy to implement since it's similar to the "package" attribute, which also takes a value as the module name.
Re: how to make private class member private
On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 09:18:13 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote: It's a language design decision as to whether a particular feature is worth supporting. I would like this feature too though. I'm not sure how much compiler complexity would be added by having another visibility modifier. D could add an new attribute to class members: @deny A @deny attribute can come before a classes private member, to indicate that the private member is to remain private, even within the module. Cause sure, it nice to be among friends, but you don't want your friends knowing every thought that is going through your mind! Sometimes, somethings, just need to remain private. @deny private string _userName; now... _userName is no longer accessible at the module level, and class encapsulation is restored. If had I any clue about compilers, I'd think this through more ;-)
Logging Function Parameters
Hi,
I am looking for a method to log the current function name +
parameters.
Getting the name of the current function is simply possible with
__PRETTY_FUNCTION__
Is there some possibility to generically access the parameters of
a function such that they can be iterated and printed out?
currently i have something like this:
log.info(__PRETTY_FUNCTION__, " ", parameter1, " ", parameter2);
i would like to get to something like that:
log.info(__PRETTY_FUNCTION__, " ", parameters.join(", "));
Re: how to make private class member private
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 13:59:00 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: If you limit to class members, then you have to do something like C++ friends, which are unnecessarily verbose. Not if you also have a module-level visibility modifier, which could have been `module`. IMO, the module-level encapsulation is the right choice. It helps with a lot of key features: 1. IFTI factory methods Aren't these mainly because constructors can't use IFTI, unlike C++17, and because nullary struct constructors are banned? 2. unittests Documented unittests should not be allowed to use private symbols, I just filed this: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18623
Re: how to make private class member private
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 05:11:48 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: If you have access to the module source, you have access to the source of types inside it. Making the module the lowest level of encapsulation makes sense from that perspective. There are two problems I see: 1st - D has broken the concept of class encapsulation, simply for convenience at the module level. Not good in my opinion. It's a language design decision as to whether a particular feature is worth supporting. I would like this feature too though. I'm not sure how much compiler complexity would be added by having another visibility modifier. I'm surprised how many people here ignore the advantage of being able to modify your class/struct fields without the chance of breaking template code that might not even be instantiated by a unit test. (And no, the answer to this isn't fix your tests, because if that's your attitude, why bother with static typing, just use duck typing, the unit tests will catch any bugs). In theory this and other generic unit test issues could be comprehensively solved by having a Rust-like traits feature. 2nd - C++/C#/Java programmers will come to D, use the same syntax, but get very different semantics. Not good in my opinion. (i.e. I only realised private was not private, by accident). D has made many good design decisions. I do not see this as one of them. +1, D should have used a different keyword, such as `module`. It is a classic source of confusion for programmers familiar with many statically typed languages, and it comes up regularly here. It is a syntax issue, semantically the feature is better than just having true private.
Re: Convert output range to input range
On Saturday, March 17, 2018 06:58:04 Dukc via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > On Friday, 16 March 2018 at 08:07:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > For instance, std.array.Appender is an output range, and you > > get a dynamic array out of it, which would be an input range. > > So, if you have control over what output range you're dealing > > with, the simplest would be to just use Appender. > > I think it's worth warning that appending on an array may > invalidate all copies of it. Meaning that you should not append > on an array while you're iterating over it, unless iterating by > the original copy of the array. Note that foreach loop copies the > range by default. Pass refRange(*array) to foreach instead. Appending to a dynamic array doesn't invalidate anything. It just results in a new buffer being allocated and the dynamic array being changed to point to it instead of the dynamic array does not have enough capacity to append in place. Any other dynamic arrays which were slices of the previous buffer still refer to it and are perfectly valid. Yes, if you want to treat a dynamic array as a reference type, it's not going to work to simply pass around a dynamic array, because dynamic arrays are pseudo-reference types and not reference types, and if you want a reference type, you're going to have to wrap the dynamic array in another type, but the fact that they're pseudo-reference types does not mean that anything is invalidated when appending. Now, doing something like iterating over a dynamic array with a foreach loop and then appending to it in that same loop means that you're really operating on two dynamic arrays, because the loop is slices the dynamic array and is thus iterating over another dynamic array which (at least initially) refers to the same memory, and the appending that you're doing won't affect it. So, you do have to be careful about appending while iterating if you really want to be appending to the same dynamic array that you're iterating over, but everything involved will be valid regardless. It just may not have the behavior you want, because the dynamic array has been sliced. In any case, based on the OP's question, it was my assumption that they intended to fully write to the output range and then operate on the results as on input range, which then has none of the problems associated with trying to put while you pop. If they want to put while they're popping, then things get far more complicated, and a dynamic array is probably not the best solution whether Appender is used or not. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Convert output range to input range
On Friday, 16 March 2018 at 08:07:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: For instance, std.array.Appender is an output range, and you get a dynamic array out of it, which would be an input range. So, if you have control over what output range you're dealing with, the simplest would be to just use Appender. I think it's worth warning that appending on an array may invalidate all copies of it. Meaning that you should not append on an array while you're iterating over it, unless iterating by the original copy of the array. Note that foreach loop copies the range by default. Pass refRange(*array) to foreach instead.
