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.

No no, I preferred the original myself.  I also really liked the if(;) syntax, but alas. Although...  I didn't see anything in the ChangeLog saying the if(;) syntax is /gone/, just that the if(auto=) syntax was added.  Hmm.  Must check that.

Meanwhile, I have to deal with these scope(*) statements, with yet more language defined constants (exit/success/failure) for IDEs and highlighters to trip over.  Fantastic.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
March 09, 2006
In article <dul3ku$2sv2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>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!  Just to clarify though...

Are exit, success, and failure forbidden as idents or otherwise keyword-like outside of the "scope(X)" construct?

Kevin


March 09, 2006
Lucas Goss wrote:
> Hasan Aljudy wrote:
>> Lucas Goss wrote:
>>> The inconsistency is in the style of the language. Where else in the language is there a keyword inside another keyword?
>>
>> while(true) :)
> 
> Hmm, true. But while accepts a condition. So I can do:
> while(myTimer < 1000), while(!done)
> but I can't do:
> scope(isFinished), scope(timerAbort)
> 
Also, 'true' exists outside of while, unlike the scope keywords, so that really doesn't serve as an example.



-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
March 09, 2006
"Kevin Bealer" <Kevin_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:duo3sf$1j7h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Are exit, success, and failure forbidden as idents or otherwise
> keyword-like
> outside of the "scope(X)" construct?

Nah.  You can use them as much as you like.

int exit = 5;


March 09, 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.

I miss the 'on' in this new syntax. But anyway, I can't find any syntax that I do like.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
March 09, 2006
>Avoid English words. Problem solved.
ROTFL

I am hungarian and use this technique for years ;-)

But seriously ... Own programs could be written in our mother tongue, commonly used codes couldn't.

Tamas Nagy


March 09, 2006
>My general experience with people who say "D is a great language, but I won't use it because of <minor nitpick> because <minor nitpick> is the most important thing in the world" is that they won't use it anyway, and are just looking for an excuse.

Absolutely agree.
I have told to many "friends" to check D site and tell me their opinions.
Most of them had excuses: no IDE, no GUI, no ... bla-bla-bla
And they use Visual Studio with Intellisense and such crap.

(I use DMD as regular compiler for small inhouse projects for two years. And I
really like it.)

D is not for every "code writer", it is for developers.

Tamas Nagy


March 10, 2006
Georg Wrede wrote:
> 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.)

You abstract away vast majority of the "fundamentals" and "processor physics" if you program in C instead of binary machine language or a specialized assembler. Actually I daresay that unless you have a PhD in physics and work at Intel or AMD you probably have already abstracted away most of processor physics, which use the word 'quantum' a lot.

Let's do an example: just how closely C's standard IO facilities corresponds with implementations of actual file systems in operating systems? Not very closely at all. Indeed, they are nothing alike. C's IO system is a very high-level abstraction, even if it seems low-level because of it's design. All recent operating systems have a much more modern and "high-level" API for IO than C, even when they are of lower abstraction level, and therefore actually more low-level than C's. Do not confuse low-level with poor language design, that's what K&R and Stroustrup did.

Furthermore, processor instruction sets have evolved way beyond C; do you have anything equivalent to vectorization, pareller execution or hardware threads in standard C? C may have had some resemblance to instruction sets and operating fundamentals of some specific computer architecture in the 1970's, but it hasn't had that in decades. Face it, even C is a high-level abstraction built on abstraction (which chooses to represent boolean values as integers). Every high level language is. Again, do not confuse poor design with efficiency and "low-levelism".

-- 
Niko Korhonen
SW Developer
March 11, 2006
In article <1osp8dzdh9ihy$.yoi1lhqbyw8f$.dlg@40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...
>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.

I hope you don't mean "Hungarian" notation or other cryptic naming hacks. I find that code style impossible to read.


March 11, 2006
Mark T schrieb am 2006-03-11:
> In article <1osp8dzdh9ihy$.yoi1lhqbyw8f$.dlg@40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...
>>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.
>
> I hope you don't mean "Hungarian" notation or other cryptic naming hacks. I find that code style impossible to read.

I just love C#:

> class NamingOnTheRocks{
>    static int @if(int @while){
>        return @while * @while;
>    }
>
>    public static int Main(string[] args){
>        int @return;
>        int @static = 3, @switch = 8, @break = 2, @case = 3, @true = 0;
>
>        if(@if(@switch + @break) * @case != @true){
>            @return = @static;
>        }else{
>            @return = @break / @static;
>        }
>
>        return @return * 2;
>    }
> }

No joke - this is valid C# !

Thomas


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