View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
March 31, 2005
Re: Phobos: What's in a name?
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
> 
> 
>
March 31, 2005
Re: Phobos: What's in a name?
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
>>
>>
>>
>>
March 31, 2005
Re: Phobos: Renaming, Reorganizing, etc...
"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".
March 31, 2005
Re: Phobos: What's in a name?
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
>>
March 31, 2005
Re: Phobos: What's in a name?
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.
March 31, 2005
Re: Phobos: Renaming, Reorganizing, etc...
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.
March 31, 2005
Re: Phobos: What's in a name?
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
>>
>>
>>
>>
March 31, 2005
Re: Phobos: What's in a name?
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
March 31, 2005
Re: Phobos: Renaming, Reorganizing, etc...
"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.
March 31, 2005
Re: Phobos: What's in a name?
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 ;]
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home