On Sunday, 23 May 2021 at 14:13:36 UTC, Alain De Vos wrote:
This one compiles without any problem.
Maybe someone can enlighten us on the status of
scope(d)-variables and dip-1000.
It is not fully clear for me.
```
import std.stdio;
void main() @trusted
{
int *q=null;
{
int a;
On Saturday, 15 May 2021 at 14:31:08 UTC, Alain De Vos wrote:
Which parts in dlang don't you use and why ?
Auto return types i find dangerous to use.
I found `auto` and `ref`(yes just `ref`) return types very useful
for bypassing the type system, eg.:
```D
///function requires lvalue and
On Sunday, 23 May 2021 at 14:13:36 UTC, Alain De Vos wrote:
This one compiles without any problem.
You annotated main `@trusted`, which means you want the compiler
to assume it to be `@safe` without checking it. Mark it `@safe`
and it reports:
Error: address of variable `a` assigned to `q`
This one compiles without any problem.
Maybe someone can enlighten us on the status of
scope(d)-variables and dip-1000.
It is not fully clear for me.
```
import std.stdio;
void main() @trusted
{
int *q=null;
{
int a;
q=
}
*q=5;
}
```
On Sunday, 23 May 2021 at 12:08:31 UTC, Alain De Vos wrote:
It is sufficient to have a bit complex gui and database access
and the @safe annotation can nowhere be used in your program.
The compiler misses scopes checks without.
I think you are supposed to use @trusted to tell the compiler
It is sufficient to have a bit complex gui and database access
and the @safe annotation can nowhere be used in your program.
The compiler misses scopes checks without.
On Sunday, 23 May 2021 at 10:24:53 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
On Sunday, 23 May 2021 at 08:35:31 UTC, Tony wrote:
On Saturday, 15 May 2021 at 21:15:01 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
Why is metaprogramming added features better than the same
features added in the language? One is standard
On Sunday, 23 May 2021 at 08:35:31 UTC, Tony wrote:
On Saturday, 15 May 2021 at 21:15:01 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
Why is metaprogramming added features better than the same
features added in the language? One is standard between
entities, the other is not.
There are many reasons, one
On Sunday, 23 May 2021 at 08:35:31 UTC, Tony wrote:
Why is metaprogramming added features better than the same
features added in the language? One is standard between
entities, the other is not.
Some points:
- Some features aren't general enough to be added as builtin but
make sense to have
On Saturday, 15 May 2021 at 21:15:01 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grostad
wrote:
On Saturday, 15 May 2021 at 14:31:08 UTC, Alain De Vos wrote:
In general it is better to have fewer features and instead
improve metaprogramming so that missing features can be done in
a library.
Why is
On Saturday, 22 May 2021 at 17:32:34 UTC, sighoya wrote:
But I think providing an external ast tree mapped onto the
changing internal one used by DMD would be a feasible approach.
It is feasible, but if you want to do it well you should think in
terms of rewrite engines with patternmatching,
On Saturday, 22 May 2021 at 13:31:45 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
The D AST is not really suitable as it stands.
D is a bit like C++ in this regard, there might be a minimal
core language that could be distilled from it, but it would take
a D3 full breaking change to get there, so it
On Saturday, 22 May 2021 at 13:26:38 UTC, sighoya wrote:
But the more general problem in D are not features per se, but
how they are composed of.
For instance: Why no AST macros instead of string mixins,
templates, mixin templates and alias?
All these forms could be special ast macros.
I
On Saturday, 15 May 2021 at 14:31:08 UTC, Alain De Vos wrote:
Which parts in dlang don't you use and why ?
Well, I don't like magic constructs in the language like the type
of AliasSeq you can't touch.
But the more general problem in D are not features per se, but
how they are composed of.
For a number it's best to have something you know how many bytes
it takes in memory.
Knowing the number of bytes in memory is a good thing.
On Saturday, 15 May 2021 at 14:31:08 UTC, Alain De Vos wrote:
Which parts in dlang don't you use and why?
There is one feature (actually a mix of features) I'd be happy
not to use, but it is not possible: I call it autoreals, because
it resembles somewhat the idea behind autodecoding - in
On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 16:16:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I cannot live without auto return types and Voldemort types.
They are my bread and butter. Take them away, and I might as
well go back to C/C++.
C++ has both?
What I find ugly:
- shared, and all of its quirks and incomplete
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 02:31:08PM +, Alain De Vos via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> Which parts in dlang don't you use and why ?
>
> Personally i have no need for enum types, immutable is doing fine.
> Auto return types i find dangerous to use.
> Voldermont types.
> Named initialiser.
>
I want to be able to support CP936, not just UTF8.
I can't use CP936. It's my pet peeve.
Hopefully we can solve the coding problem just like Python with
#encoding= GBK.
On Saturday, 15 May 2021 at 14:31:08 UTC, Alain De Vos wrote:
Feature creep can make your own code unreadable.
Having many ways to express the same concept makes code harder to
read. This is an issue in C++, but you can combat it by creating
coding norms.
In general it is better to have
21 matches
Mail list logo
