March 08, 2006
"David Medlock" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:dulc2p$7m4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> C-Junkie: "Well there is my old reliable if statement...wait a minute...whats all this then?  This language is too weird, I am going back to my comfortable (language-X)."

Or they'll look at it and say, "oh, well that's cool, I've always been able to do that in for loops, now I can do it in ifs as well!"

And if they give up on a language because of one new feature, they don't deserve to be using it.


March 08, 2006
Walter Bright wrote:
> Changed on_scope keywords per the general consensus of the n.g.
> 
> The implicit function template instantiation is a bit limited at the moment, deduction won't work for types derived from templates, and the mechanism to pick the most specialized template doesn't work.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> 
> 


Excellent fix to the scope statement.  Thank you again, Walter.  I like where this is headed.  Keep up the good work.  D is looking more attractive and exciting all the time.

-JJR
March 08, 2006
Walter Bright wrote:
> Changed on_scope keywords per the general consensus of the n.g.

nooooooooooooooooooooooooo... I guess I was the only one that didn't like the proposed change of scope(...). Inconsistencies in d drive me mad (crazy). I love the language and hate it at the same time.

The other changes are nice though, nice work.
March 08, 2006
"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message news:440E29AA.1090408@nospam.org...
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> "Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message news:440E1336.3050608@nospam.org...
>>
>>>BTW, what does "Implicit casts of non-bool to bool disallowed" mean?
>>
>> It means you can no longer write
>>
>> bool x = 5;
>
> Shhhhhttt! Good-bye C/C++ folks!
>
> It's not like anybody would want to write exactly
>
>     bool x = 5;
>
> but more like
>
>     bool x = strcmp("foo", "bar");
>     if (!x) { /* do stuff */ }        // match
>     else { /* call the cops! */ }     // no match
>
> which, incidentally, is one of the more profound proposititions in any C-derived language.
>
> The Old School Boolean C Logic was a perfectly functioning Concept. This fact _alone_ was the reason "Bool" took so long to be "formally" introduced into either C or C++. No regular programmer ever needed Prude Bool, only the Superior Theoreticians Thought it Wise to force this upon the language. It was profoundly useful as-is, and didn't need any pimping. A language that purports to be "to-the-metal" just has to take into consideration the fundamentals of [digital] life. And processor physics. (Wanna abstract away that? Then go to Java or whatever.)
>
> The other night [in the D newsgroup, when it was getting hilarious] it dawned to me, that quite [too] many of the vocatious NG-members never had read their Boolean IT Fundamentals.
>
> Good Grief: "there's just too many instances in history where the illiterati have dictated the outcome of otherwise intellectual confrontations". Damn!!
>
> The ramifications of this (minor looking) modification are grave, I'm afraid.
>
> Now what happens to
>
>     if (stcmp("foo", "bar")) {}
>
> ???
This has some merrit to it in my opinion; what's wrong with beeing able to cast an int to a bool; it allows the above stated functionality, but doesn't really present any harms that I can see.


March 08, 2006
Walter Bright wrote:
> Changed on_scope keywords per the general consensus of the n.g.
> 
> The implicit function template instantiation is a bit limited at the moment, deduction won't work for types derived from templates, and the mechanism to pick the most specialized template doesn't work.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> 
> 

Great work, Walter!

I'll throw out more bizarre test cases to help you perfect dmd ;)
March 08, 2006
Quote from change log:
	Added std.c.fenv.

Where's the documentation? Then again where's the documentation for most of std.c.*?
March 08, 2006
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 21:02:11 -0500, Ameer Armaly wrote:

>
>> Now what happens to
>>
>>     if (stcmp("foo", "bar")) {}
>>
>> ???
> This has some merrit to it in my opinion; what's wrong with beeing able to cast an int to a bool; it allows the above stated functionality, but doesn't really present any harms that I can see.

You *can* cast an integer to a bool, but it must be explicit and no implicit.

   bool x = cast(bool)42;  // okay
   bool x = 42;  // not okay


-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
8/03/2006 1:11:07 PM
March 08, 2006
> It's not like anybody would want to write exactly
> 
>     bool x = 5;
> 
> but more like
> 
>     bool x = strcmp("foo", "bar");
>     if (!x) { /* do stuff */ }        // match
>     else { /* call the cops! */ }     // no match
> 

"!!" ends up as a cast to bool

try:

import std.stdio;

int main()
{
	int i = 1;
	int j = 2;
	int k = 0;

	if(!!i)writef("i\n");else writef("!i\n");
	if(!!j)writef("j\n");else writef("!j\n");
	if(!!k)writef("k\n");else writef("!k\n");

	return 0;
}
March 08, 2006
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:04:08 -0800, BCS wrote:

> Quote from change log:
> 	Added std.c.fenv.
> 
> Where's the documentation? Then again where's the documentation for most of std.c.*?

I comes with your C compiler <G>

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
8/03/2006 1:12:42 PM
March 08, 2006
Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:04:08 -0800, BCS wrote:
> 
> 
>>Quote from change log:
>>	Added std.c.fenv.
>>
>>Where's the documentation? Then again where's the documentation for most of std.c.*?
> 
> 
> I comes with your C compiler <G>
> 

C compiler? Now where did I put that thing? :P
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home