On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 02:05:51 UTC, Manu wrote:
> We all wanted to ability to define class member functions outside the class
> definition:
>   class MyClass
>   {
>     void method();
>   }
>
>   void MyClass.method()
>   {
>     //...
>   }
>
> It definitely cost us time simply trying to understand the class layout
> visually (ie, when IDE support is barely available).
> You don't need to see the function bodies in the class definition, you want
> to quickly see what a class has and does.

Uggh! I absolutely do not agree with this. You should rely on documentation or an IDE class overview for these things *not* alter the language. In lieu of IDE support just use ddoc comments for methods and properties and compile the documentation for each build.

On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 05:53:29 +0200, Jakob Ovrum <jakobovrum@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Yes, we hit DMD bugs, like the one with opaque structs which required
>> extensive work-arounds.
>>   struct MyStruct;
>>   MyStruct*[] = new MyStruct*[n];
>
> I'm not sure this is a bug. How do you default initialize an array of structs you don't know the .init values of?

An array of struct *pointers*. Fill it with nulls, I'd say.

-- 
Simen

On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 02:05:51 UTC, Manu wrote:
> ...
>> </endrant>

Thought number one after reading "This is why I absolutely hate programming for Windows!" :) Was pretty happy with vim, grep, gdb and makefiles on Linux. Anyway, key problem (as far as I can see) here is that few of D developers have both experience and personal interest in any IDE/Windows focus as well as related tool stack. D has some nice flavor of anarchy - both like it and consider it a problem.

On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 10:21:18 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 09:46:08 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> That doesn't mean there aren't any IDE's out there with good support for autocompletion. The one in Eclipse for Java is fantastic. The one in Xcode 4+ for C/C++ and Objective-C/C++ is really good.
>
> Java is not a good comparison because it does not have any compile-time metaprogramming features to speak of.
>
> I've never used Xcode but how does it fare when faced with C++ template metaprogramming?
>

My understanding is that it uses libclang.

On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 10:39:15 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 05:53:29 +0200, Jakob Ovrum <jakobovrum@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, we hit DMD bugs, like the one with opaque structs which required
>>> extensive work-arounds.
>>>  struct MyStruct;
>>>  MyStruct*[] = new MyStruct*[n];
>>
>> I'm not sure this is a bug. How do you default initialize an array of structs you don't know the .init values of?
>
> An array of struct *pointers*. Fill it with nulls, I'd say.

I assumed that's the "work-around" he referred to. After testing I realize not even the pointers work. Yeah, that's clearly a bug.

On 9/1/2013 7:40 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 02:05:51 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> ...
>>> </endrant>
>
> Thought number one after reading "This is why I absolutely hate
> programming for Windows!" :) Was pretty happy with vim, grep, gdb and
> makefiles on Linux. Anyway, key problem (as far as I can see) here is
> that few of D developers have both experience and personal interest in
> any IDE/Windows focus as well as related tool stack. D has some nice
> flavor of anarchy - both like it and consider it a problem.

I have a batch file tied to a command prompt shortcut that always sets the D environment when I launch it. Updating DMD is a matter of deleting the old directory and unzipping the zip file. Editing is a matter of launching Sublime Text 2. Compiling is alt-tabbing to the command prompt and typing "dub build". It's a painless process and I never have any trouble. Of course, I don't try to use the MS tools, or build DMD myself. That way lies pain.

Manu:

> We all wanted to ability to define class member functions outside the class
> definition:
>   class MyClass
>   {
>     void method();
>   }
>
>   void MyClass.method()
>   {
>     //...
>   }
>
> It definitely cost us time simply trying to understand the class layout
> visually (ie, when IDE support is barely available).
> You don't need to see the function bodies in the class definition, you want
> to quickly see what a class has and does.

Having the pieces of a class spread is not something I'd like. So before changing this a discussion is needed.

Bye,
bearophile

On 9/1/13, Michel Fortin <michel.fortin@michelf.ca> wrote:
> So I'm no longer using D, but I'm still hanging around here from time to time because there's always something interesting to read.

That's a shame. But yeah, people should use what makes them productive and what brings food on the table, I can't judge you with that decision. The newsgroup is pretty entertaining to stay around though. :p

On 9/1/13, Jakob Ovrum <jakobovrum@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure this is a bug. How do you default initialize an array of structs you don't know the .init values of?

Note that this is an array of /pointers/ to opaque structs, so it's valid code.

On 2013-09-01 12:43, deadalnix wrote:

> My understanding is that it uses libclang.

Yes, and it can see through macros, templates and everything.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg