March 08, 2006
[snips]
>>>int main()
>>>{
>>>	int k = 0;
>>>
>>>	if(!!k)writef("k\n");else writef("!k\n");
>>
>> LOL.... try this too.
>> 
>>        writefln("%s %s", !!i, !!k);
>
>ack! this is wrong!!
>
>apparently, ! returns a bool


I think this (a shorthand for compare to zero) would be a vary useful thing to
have officially in D, it would negate a lot of the arguments against pure bools
without diluting them (much).


March 08, 2006
In article <duli9p$fl0$4@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>
>"BCS" <BCS_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dule2p$5tn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Quote from change log:
>> Added std.c.fenv.
>>
>> Where's the documentation? Then again where's the documentation for most of std.c.*?
>
>I haven't bothered because it will be, by definition, identical to standard C documentation for those declarations.
>
>

Just a list of the function in the docs would be nice, one line of description would be terrific.


March 08, 2006
Lucas Goss wrote:
> 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 liked the old form as well.  Ah well :-)


Sean
March 08, 2006
Lucas Goss wrote:
> 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.

What's the inconsistency here?
March 08, 2006
In article <dulcq5$8cj$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Lucas Goss says...
>
>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.

this especially bites for those of us using scope as an identifier...  :(


March 08, 2006
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 05:25:29 +0000 (UTC), AgentOrange wrote:

> In article <dulcq5$8cj$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Lucas Goss says...
>>
>>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.
> 
> this especially bites for those of us using scope as an identifier...  :(

This is kinda off topic but I can't understand why coders still use standard words for identifiers. I mean after all these years of experience with computing languages, this is one common source of bugs and problems.

So to make coding life easier, just stop using single normal words for identifiers. Pick a naming convention that prevents this habit and the chances you are going to clash with reserved words is greatly reduced. It not really all that hard.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
8/03/2006 4:36:11 PM
March 08, 2006
In article <1osp8dzdh9ihy$.yoi1lhqbyw8f$.dlg@40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...
>
>On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 05:25:29 +0000 (UTC), AgentOrange wrote:
>
>> In article <dulcq5$8cj$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Lucas Goss says...
>>>
>>>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.
>> 
>> this especially bites for those of us using scope as an identifier...  :(
>
>This is kinda off topic but I can't understand why coders still use standard words for identifiers. I mean after all these years of experience with computing languages, this is one common source of bugs and problems.
>
>So to make coding life easier, just stop using single normal words for identifiers. Pick a naming convention that prevents this habit and the chances you are going to clash with reserved words is greatly reduced. It not really all that hard.
>
>-- 
>Derek
>(skype: derek.j.parnell)
>Melbourne, Australia
>"Down with mediocracy!"
>8/03/2006 4:36:11 PM


#1 I completely agree with you

#2 Please look at the DMD front end written by Walter Bright ;)



March 08, 2006
Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 05:25:29 +0000 (UTC), AgentOrange wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <dulcq5$8cj$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Lucas Goss says...
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>this especially bites for those of us using scope as an identifier...  :(
> 
> 
> This is kinda off topic but I can't understand why coders still use
> standard words for identifiers. I mean after all these years of experience
> with computing languages, this is one common source of bugs and problems. 
> 
> So to make coding life easier, just stop using single normal words for
> identifiers. Pick a naming convention that prevents this habit and the
> chances you are going to clash with reserved words is greatly reduced. It
> not really all that hard.
> 

Avoid English words. Problem solved.
March 08, 2006
Walter Bright wrote:
> 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.

Frightening!

This was IMHO the #1 advantage C++ still had over D. It might be enough to swing some of the boost crowd over here. It seems that by the time you do your presentation, C++ templates will look positively archaic. <g>

BTW, when you update the comparison chart, you might want to split
"Value Template Parameters" into Integral (which C++ has) and floating point/string (which it doesn't).
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
> 

Wow, great work Walter :)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home