I'll remember not to joke in the future.  No one gets it.

-[Unknown]


> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
> 
>> Ehm?  Someone call?  I post here so little I'm surprised I was mentioned...
> 
> 
> I'm sure he wants to hear as many voices as possible, but I'm fairly certain that "[Unknown]" was intended to be the name of the category (see also [Ambivalent], [Against renaming], etc.).
> 
> ...
> 
>>> [Unknown] Anders F Björklund, Carlos Santander B, Sean Kelly, Walter, Benjamin Herr,  Georg Wrede, Trevor Parscal, everyone else
> 
> 
> 

I admit that I chuckled.

Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
> I'll remember not to joke in the future.  No one gets it.
> 
> -[Unknown]
> 
> 
>> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
>>
>>> Ehm?  Someone call?  I post here so little I'm surprised I was mentioned...
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sure he wants to hear as many voices as possible, but I'm fairly certain that "[Unknown]" was intended to be the name of the category (see also [Ambivalent], [Against renaming], etc.).
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> [Unknown] Anders F Björklund, Carlos Santander B, Sean Kelly, Walter, Benjamin Herr,  Georg Wrede, Trevor Parscal, everyone else
>>
>>
>>
>>

"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:v4mch8wqquaz.9l4p82iew48u.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:53:42 +1000, Derek Parnell wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:23:30 -0800, Walter wrote:
> >
> >> "Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:hmt0w1vqr6kt$.sb6zy77ta9k4.dlg@40tude.net...
> >>> I does seem odd to me too that DMD disallows a source file to have the
> >> same
> >>> basic name as the directory its in. The file system handles this quite
> >> well
> >>> so why DMD doesn't is still a mystery to me.
> >>
> >> I agree with the rest of your post. But the file system doesn't handle
it at
> >> all. No file system I know of allows both a file and a directory to
have the
> >> same name. Try creating a file named 'foo' and a subdirectory 'foo' at
the
> >> same time!
> >
> > I'm sorry I didn't highlight the important word in my post. See how I
said
> > "*basic* name" and not "file name". By that I meant the file name
excluding
> > the 'extension' portion. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. So what I
meant
> > was 'foo.d' is allowed inside a directory called 'foo'.
>
> Oops, pressed send to quickly (again).
>
> So what I meant was 'foo.d' is allowed along side a directory called
'foo'.

Of course. But the filesystem doesn't allow you to refer to "foo.d" as "foo".

I got it!
:)

Regan

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:13:41 -0800, Unknown W. Brackets <unknown@simplemachines.org> wrote:
> I'll remember not to joke in the future.  No one gets it.
>
> -[Unknown]
>
>
>> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
>>
>>> Ehm?  Someone call?  I post here so little I'm surprised I was mentioned...
>>   I'm sure he wants to hear as many voices as possible, but I'm fairly certain that "[Unknown]" was intended to be the name of the category (see also [Ambivalent], [Against renaming], etc.).
>>  ...
>>
>>>> [Unknown] Anders F Björklund, Carlos Santander B, Sean Kelly, Walter, Benjamin Herr,  Georg Wrede, Trevor Parscal, everyone else
>>

Regan Heath wrote:
> On the grand sceme of things my little BitArray library/module/thing  probably isn't the most important piece of work going on in D at the  moment. It's just, well, every time I go to write something in D I hit  these sorts of bugs or limitations. It's disheartening, but, I'm patient  and not what you'd call serious about development in D (yet) so I can  handle it.

OT: I find that kind of positive. (For everyone except you, that is.)

Point being, you must definitely belong to the group of guys who really utilise D and its capabilities to the max. And that is a Good Thing. And a plus if I ever hire folks. :-)

As for me, I find myself using constructs and phrases that could mostly be used in any C-family language, and only occasionally I use the more "modern" features. That's sad. 20 years ago I would've been like you. By the time I start regularly using them, others have already had to bang their heads into bugs, and cut through the jungle, giving me a sunny path at it.

BACK to topic, I always thought that using templates to add the non-static stuff was so hard to implement, that Walter was going to do it later. I mean, this lack sticks in the eye, and even I have wished to use it already (in spite of my "conservative" coding style :-) ).

Off hand, one might say that using inheritance would be better, but it isn't. Not at all for this thing anyway.

Walter wrote:
>>So what I meant was 'foo.d' is allowed along side a directory called
>> 
>> 'foo'.
> 
> Of course. But the filesystem doesn't allow you to refer to "foo.d" as
> "foo".

Ehhhhhh, I'm totally at a loss here. 8-/

I see no reason for this need or not need to have files and directories with the same name. And probably there's never been a good reason for it for anybody else either, otherwise unix would already have it.

The FILESYSTEM doesn't have to allow it. The COMPILER may allow it (to look as if). IF that is what we want. (I don't.)

-----------------

I think we should just concentrate on the syntax, and its usability and the various proposals or suggestions.

Actually, the very discussion about file/dir here is a sign of the current package/module semantics being, at the very least, unobvious.

Ahhh, go on. We all need a giggle now and then.

Besides, those who got it giggled and never posted.

Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
> I'll remember not to joke in the future.  No one gets it.
> 
> -[Unknown]
> 
> 
>> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
>>
>>> Ehm?  Someone call?  I post here so little I'm surprised I was mentioned...
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sure he wants to hear as many voices as possible, but I'm fairly certain that "[Unknown]" was intended to be the name of the category (see also [Ambivalent], [Against renaming], etc.).
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> [Unknown] Anders F Björklund, Carlos Santander B, Sean Kelly, Walter, Benjamin Herr,  Georg Wrede, Trevor Parscal, everyone else
>>
>>
>>
>>

In article <d2dsn9$n7k$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
[...]
> I've seen endless 3 letter acronyms, and would
>like to just be a bit more creative than "DSL" or other boring acronym.
>
>I've had thoughts of naming all D libraries after moons. <g>
>
>I like "Diemos" very much as the etc library.
>
>"Java" is another name for a major product that is not impeded by its name.

And don't forget "swing". Swing was the internal code name for the project, and at some point in time it was renamed to "JFC". Still today nobody uses JFC and everybody keeps calling it swing.

[...]
>I agree that what the library does is far more important than its name.

Me too.

Ciao

"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message news:424BD4C1.5090109@nospam.org...
> Walter wrote:
> >>So what I meant was 'foo.d' is allowed along side a directory called
> >>
> >> 'foo'.
> >
> > Of course. But the filesystem doesn't allow you to refer to "foo.d" as "foo".
>
> Ehhhhhh, I'm totally at a loss here. 8-/
>
> I see no reason for this need or not need to have files and directories with the same name. And probably there's never been a good reason for it for anybody else either, otherwise unix would already have it.

I agree. I am at a loss as well why this is perceived as a problem, which is why I'd asked for a clarification.

> The FILESYSTEM doesn't have to allow it. The COMPILER may allow it (to
> look as if). IF that is what we want. (I don't.)
>
> -----------------
>
> I think we should just concentrate on the syntax, and its usability and the various proposals or suggestions.
>
> Actually, the very discussion about file/dir here is a sign of the current package/module semantics being, at the very least, unobvious.

Just a thought - it might be too obvious. Sometimes, people impute complexity where there isn't any, because they are expecting it to be complicated. D has very simple name scoping and lookup rules, which can be baffling at first when coming from C++ where nothing is straightforward about symbol lookup.

In article <d2frkv$2ns2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> wrote in message news:opsog6g1f323k2f5@nrage.netwin.co.nz...
>> At the present time:
>> 1. D's compiler has bugs, stopping me from writing my/a library.
>
>Which bug(s) in particular?
>
>

The GC aligment or whatever it was ;]