On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:30:42AM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:19:36 -0800
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> > 
> > Speaking of which, did you manage to polish up the LaTeX macros to produce decent output? I'd love to take a look if you did -- I'm a LaTeX fan.
> > 
> > T
> > 
> > -- 
> > Those who've learned LaTeX swear by it. Those who are learning LaTeX swear at it. -- Pete Bleackley
> 
> Your signature randomizer is becoming sentient...

Actually, this time I cheated. I manually picked that line for this particular post. ;-)

Though I have to say, there were times in the past when the Perl script picked a quote that is eeriely relevant to the discussion at hand. The thought *did* cross my mind that it's starting to exhibit sentience. :-P

On the other hand, I used to know someone whose signature script actually scanned the message body for keywords, and used some kind of Markov chain algo or some-such to pick the most appropriate quote for the occasion given those keywords. Alas, my understanding of Markov chains (or whatever it is they used) is practically nil, so I wouldn't know how to implement such a thing.


T

-- 
If you compete with slaves, you become a slave. -- Norbert Wiener

On 01/22/2013 12:42 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> ...
>
> It doesn't sound at all like it's an epitome of dynamic language,
> then. The *core* of it might be, but if it both provides *and*
> encourages you to use static typing, then if you choose to do so,
> you're clearly NOT doing dynamic programming - you're doing
> static programming. I don't see how using a static type system can ever
> be accurately called "dynamic programming".
>

I'm doing it all the time. :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 07:02:59AM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 01/22/2013 12:42 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >...
> >
> >It doesn't sound at all like it's an epitome of dynamic language, then. The *core* of it might be, but if it both provides *and* encourages you to use static typing, then if you choose to do so, you're clearly NOT doing dynamic programming - you're doing static programming. I don't see how using a static type system can ever be accurately called "dynamic programming".
> >
> 
> I'm doing it all the time. :P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming

Yeah, that one always cracks me up.  Funny how the same terms get applied in completely unrelated ways in different places, often in conflicting ways.

Reminds me of how "French horn" refers to an instrument that neither originated nor developed in France (it was in Germany that where most of its modern development took place), or "English horn", which isn't even a "horn" to begin with, but a reed instrument, and neither did it develop in England.

(Now just don't get me started on "Liberty Horn"...)


T

-- 
Gone Chopin. Bach in a minuet.

On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 04:22:16 UTC, Knud Soerensen wrote:
[...]
> == online documentation ==
> When I returned to D I felt very frustrated with D online documentation.
> After looking for root of the feeling i found that the reason was that
> I was used to the documentation of php.
> In php each function have a page of it own. (Closely resembling the unix
> man page)
> This means that if I search for "php strip" google send me to
> http://php.net/manual/en/function.trim.php
[...]

Check out the new experimental on-line documentation.
http://vibed.org/temp/d-programming-language.org/phobos/std/range.html

You can put in user comments too.

Still not as good as it can be, but it's a big improvement over the existing documentation.

The important thing is that D seems to always be improving, and the community is very active.

--rt

On Monday, 21 January 2013 at 23:14:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/21/2013 1:21 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
>> On Monday, 21 January 2013 at 19:28:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> 3. new lambda syntax
>>
>> I wish you have fixed it (from http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8774)
>
> 8774 was fixed.
>
>>
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8832
>>
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7978

Indeed you did (as well as bunch of other issues), but there are still some non-resolved.

On 2013-01-22 04:57, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> LaTeX.

Isn't that a failure of ddoc. Wasn't ddoc supposed to be independent of the output format. If we're only using ddoc to generate the HTML documentation it seems it's not good enough.

This is not a big issue. I mostly care about the HTML docs.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 01/22/2013 10:46 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-01-22 04:57, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> LaTeX.
>
> Isn't that a failure of ddoc. Wasn't ddoc supposed to be independent of
> the output format. If we're only using ddoc to generate the HTML
> documentation it seems it's not good enough.
>
> This is not a big issue. I mostly care about the HTML docs.
>

It is ddoc -> LaTeX -> pdf.

On 2013-01-22 11:04, Timon Gehr wrote:

> It is ddoc -> LaTeX -> pdf.

Ok, I guess it's easier to go through LaTeX than directly to PDF.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Wow! :-)

Thanks for this link. This is so much better! :-)

Best regards,

Robert


> 
> Check out the new experimental on-line documentation. http://vibed.org/temp/d-programming-language.org/phobos/std/range.html
> 
> You can put in user comments too.
> 
> Still not as good as it can be, but it's a big improvement over the existing documentation.
> 
> The important thing is that D seems to always be improving, and the community is very active.
> 
> --rt

On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 at 06:38:01 UTC, Rob T wrote:
>
> Check out the new experimental on-line documentation.
> http://vibed.org/temp/d-programming-language.org/phobos/std/range.html
>
> You can put in user comments too.
>
> Still not as good as it can be, but it's a big improvement over the existing documentation.
>
> The important thing is that D seems to always be improving, and the community is very active.

 A little different; feels more like a table of contents and a brief overview of each feature/function unless you want more detail.

 Two minor dislikes, and both are the menu half on the left side.

 First, it's listing core, etc and then std; Obviously that's not horrible but std is likely the more used and should be at the top, etc and core I am not sure about, so reversing the order I would think is preferred.

 Second, the first level is automatically expanded, that's not a bad thing but with the core on the top skimming more what I want takes a little more time and navigation. I would say only have std expanded by default, or the tree you are currently in.