On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 21:25:33 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 03/27/2018 11:10 PM, 12345swordy wrote:
Shouldn't it give a warning then?
I wouldn't mind a warning, or even an error. Putting both @safe
and @system directly on a function is an error, too.
shouldn't it create a overload?
for ex
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 23:23:38 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
DMD might accept that, but I don't think it works in a
meaningful way. How do you call the @system one?
Looks like the @safe one will always be called, even from
@system code:
import std.stdio;
void talk() @system { writeln("
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 23:34:20 UTC, arturg wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 at 23:23:38 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
DMD might accept that, but I don't think it works in a
meaningful way. How do you call the @system one?
Looks like the @safe one will always be called, even from
@system code:
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 15:07:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:50:27AM +, Joakim via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
https://github.com/felixangell/krug
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8dze54/krug_a_systems_programming_language_that_compiles/
It's still too ea
On Thursday, 26 April 2018 at 22:29:46 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
(Abscissa) wrote:
On 04/26/2018 01:13 PM, arturg wrote:
why do people use this syntax?
if val == someVal
or
while val != someVal
it makes editing the code harder then if you use if(val ==
someVal).
The theory goes:
A. "less syn
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018 at 01:40:50 UTC, timepp wrote:
Now C++ allow this in a very clean way:
std::tuple foo() { return {128, true,
1.5f}; }
auto [value1, value2, value3] = foo();
Would D plan to support that in syntax level?
it depends if some dip like
https://github.com/tgehr/DIPs
On Thursday, 17 May 2018 at 05:06:54 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
If people want to propose putting each class in it's own
module, that does not address my requirements, and therefore is
not helpful to this discussion.
you could declare the public api of your class inside an actual
interface the
On Thursday, 17 May 2018 at 07:30:58 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
On Thursday, 17 May 2018 at 06:03:19 UTC, arturg wrote:
you could declare the public api of your class inside an
actual interface then use it instead of the class, that wont
give you access to the private members of the class.
you
On Tuesday, 24 July 2018 at 21:05:05 UTC, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
What is `PT` here:
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/blob/master/std/traits.d#L1224
Where does it come from?
https://dlang.org/spec/expression.html#is_expression
look for
6. is ( Type Identifier == TypeSpecialization )
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 16:02:36 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Erm, you do realize that Vim has built-in commands for
navigating nested brackets and parentheses, right? And
automatic bracket closing is just a macro away. You don't even
need a plugin for that.
LOL. One of the reasons th
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 17:51:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Hmm. Thanks. I'll have to check that out. I haven't done
anything with folds in ages.
Fortunately, I don't have to do anything with python right now
though. The main reason that I used it before was so that I
could have cro
On Saturday, 3 March 2018 at 18:28:42 UTC, aliak wrote:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 19:47:23 UTC, SimonN wrote:
If you know of other ways though I'm all ears :)
Cheers
maybe not exactly what you want, but here are some templates i
wrote a while ago which basically are a more flexible form of
On Sunday, 23 April 2017 at 12:03:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 4/22/17 4:52 PM, Joakim wrote:
On Saturday, 22 April 2017 at 11:54:08 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
DIP 1005 is titled "Dependency-Carrying Declarations".
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1005.md
All review-rel
On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 at 17:28:21 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
I made a pull request for a new DIP dealing with contract
syntax:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/66
I write the DIP in response to the discussions for DIP 1003:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/wcqebjzdjxldeywlx...@forum.dlang.org
hi, has the UDA syntax been proposed already?
void fun(int foo, int bar, int bazDaz = 0){}
fun(10, 30, 50); // normal
fun(10, 30); normal with default
fun(10, 30, @bazDaz 50); // mixed
fun(@bazDaz 50, 10, 30) // mixed and reordered
fun(@bar 30, 10); // mixed, reordered and default
fun(@foo 10,
ive read some discussions about some library solution for the ?.
operator,
has there been anything added to phobos?
wouldnt a checked with expression be a more general/longer form
of the ?. operator?
A with expression not only allows you to do unchecked/checked
access to members but to any o
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 at 00:36:04 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 May 2016 at 19:03:11 UTC, ArturG wrote:
would something like this be usefull?
A general word of advice - try to keep your post short &
concise. It is more likely to get replies then.
Yes i might have used to many example
this is a library implementation based on the with expression[1]
idea
i posted a while ago and is kinda related to the ?. operator.
as we cant fully implement the above idea as a library i tried to
do
what's possible which are basically chainable scopes[2].
implemented as 2 templates:
uncheck
On Saturday, 11 June 2016 at 14:26:20 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
Why? Because I could, I don't plan on using this for anything
serious. I think "with" is my favourite D feature right now. I
also wrote the Writer and State monads (not that D needs them):
https://github.com/atilaneves/felix
At
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 08:55:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2016-01-24 19:23, Chris Wright wrote:
It shouldn't. However, it is another way to pass function
arguments, so
for thoroughness it would be better to mention it.
Added an example.
Is this what you intended? If so, please do
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 13:40:18 UTC, HaraldZealot wrote:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 at 14:19:03 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
This is mostly to prevent ugly hacks like Flag [1].
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP88
[1] https://dlang.org/phobos/std_typecons.html#.Flag
Why not simply allow progra
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 16:17:27 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
It's a comment that the compiler verifies. You could argue that
the bulk of the type system is comments that the compiler
verifies.
named arguments solve this problem
void foo(int a = 4, int b = 10, int c = 3) {}
foo(c : 5);
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 16:50:49 UTC, HaraldZealot wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 14:35:09 UTC, arturg wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 13:40:18 UTC, HaraldZealot wrote:
the equal sign cant be used because D behaves like this
int width, height;
foo(width = 5, height = 10); // 5
http://melpon.org/wandbox/permlink/u8lpOZ9owC7QXfa3
hi, that code is based on ideas and code from this[1] thread.
some examples:
// named and in order
args!(fun, a=>6, b=>65, s=>"test", f=>1.4);
// named and out of order
args!(fun, b=>65, f=>1.4, s=>"test", a=>6);
// unnamed and in
On Monday, 5 September 2016 at 18:07:52 UTC, pineapple wrote:
It works like this:
try:
do_something()
except Exception as e:
pass # Runs when an error inheriting from Exception was
raised
else:
pass # Runs when no error was raised
finally:
pass
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 02:40:45 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 02:16:44 UTC, Chris M. wrote:
So I know you can do some pattern matching with templates in
D, but has there been any discussion about implementing it as
a language feature, maybe something similar to Ru
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 at 22:29:34 UTC, Jerry wrote:
So I was thinking of a way of extending if statements that have
declarations. The following being as example of the current use
of if statements with declarations:
if(int* weDontPollute = someFunc())
{
// use weDontP
On Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 19:39:55 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/14/2016 02:04 PM, Meta wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 17:32:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh
wrote:
What about:
/* Showing full declaration just for context */
bool myFunc(R1, R2)(R1 r1, R2 r2)
import {
On Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 22:56:54 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
The acceptability of the proposal decays exponentially with its
deviation from existing import syntax. -- Andrei
sorry, i missed the import keyword :/
T1 fun(T1, T2)(T1 t1, T2 t2)
import
{
version(A)
{ impor
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 19:52:50 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/15/2016 02:22 PM, Timothee Cour via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Some more details on my proposa based on UDA:
...
I now understand the idea, thank you.
My question is, doesn't this take things too far? Earlier I
wrote:
On Friday, 30 December 2016 at 23:49:23 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
The main win, which indeed is not emphasized enough, is better
encapsulation. Walter pointed that out, and I will redo the DIP
to put that front and center.
Maybe i can provide an example where i think DCD's would be
us
31 matches
Mail list logo
