View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
October 09, 2008
Re: shouting versus dotting
Hello Andrei,

<snip>

> This is pointing at some being born into royalty while others' good
> work is under-compensated. Well in a way I'm glad you bring this up.
> One thing that has caused and is causing an amount of stir and
> occasional irritation is the perception that I came out of nowhere and
> captured Walter's attention effortlessly. The reality is that being
> neighbors with Walter was part of the mix, but the prosaic bulk of it
> is that Walter cared only because of my previous and ongoing 99%
> transpiration. For better or worse, this state of affairs makes it
> that whatever I say is perceived as much more intense, imposing,
> controversial, quirky, or arrogant, than it is, and therefore much
> more scrutinized and criticized. This reaction is entirely
> understandable, and I'm still thinking of ways to assuage it. In the
> meantime it's costing me time because I feel obligated to answer the
> many replies to my posts.


Anderi, I think you have a good grasp of the complexity of the situation 
here, and I think (or is it believe ;) ) you are doing a fine job, if not 
being a little too accomodating (in terms of trying to respond to everyone): 
I would have collapsed of exhaustion long ago if I were in your shoes.

Anyway, keep up the good work.  I think the general D/Walter relationship 
picture will become clearer the longer your participate.  It does seem that 
D is taking a turn for the better again.

-JJR
October 09, 2008
Re: shouting versus dotting
Benji Smith wrote:
> Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:02:18 +0200, Simen Kjaeraas 
>> <simen.kjaras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:39:29 +0200, Benji Smith 
>>> <dlanguage@benjismith.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>> One morning I woke up with the sudden realization of what the 
>>>>> problem was: the shouting.
>>>>
>>>> Here's my (nutty) opinion:
>>>>
>>>> Neither the "!" nor the "." really want to be there. I think the 
>>>> language really *wants* to be using a bare set of parens for 
>>>> templates. Because the language actually wants templates and 
>>>> functions to converge.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of a special-case syntax for templates, and a set of special 
>>>> rules for CTFE, and a whole set of parallel "static" statements (if, 
>>>> else, foreach) and a special compile-type-only type construct 
>>>> (tuples), just let D be D, either at runtime or compile type.
>>>>
>>>> If a function could return a Type, and if that type could be used in 
>>>> a Type Constructor, then you'd have all the magic template sauce 
>>>> you'd need, and templates could happily converge themselves with 
>>>> regular functions.
>>>>
>>>> Hey! I told you it was going to be nutty!!!
>>>>
>>>> <g>
>>>>
>>>> --benji
>>>
>>> That would only work for templated functions, though. What about 
>>> templated types?
>>>
>>
>> Forget I ever let my ass do the thinking. I'd really like to see how 
>> this would look, but I feel it'd make for uglier syntax.
> 
> I don't really know how it would work, but the syntax is easy to imagine:
> 
>    Type Dictionary = HashMap(char[], char[]);
>    Dictionary d = new Dictionary();
> 
> In this case, HashMap is just a function (executable at compile-time 
> through CTFE), which returns a type. Once the type has been returned, 
> objects of that type can be instantiated.
> 
> This idea first occurred to me when CTFE was introduced. I thought to 
> myself "if we can have compile-time function exectuion", why can't we 
> also have "runtime template instantiation"? Why is it only possible to 
> define a new type (or to choose which type) at compile time?
> 
> In languages like Ruby, you can attach new methods to an object at 
> runtime. In .NET, you can generate, compile, and load new bytecode 
> instructions on the fly.
> 
> It's hard to think of cases where you'd really want to construct a new 
> type at runtime. But maybe....automatically generating a library of 
> types by querying a database schema?

It makes sense to construct a new type in CTFE code, though.
That would allow a template to be instantiated inside a CTFE function.
Currently, a template can pass its arguments into a CTFE function, but a 
CTFE function cannot pass its arguments to a template.
October 09, 2008
Re: shouting versus dotting
John Reimer wrote:
> Hello Andrei,
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> This is pointing at some being born into royalty while others' good
>> work is under-compensated. Well in a way I'm glad you bring this up.
>> One thing that has caused and is causing an amount of stir and
>> occasional irritation is the perception that I came out of nowhere and
>> captured Walter's attention effortlessly. The reality is that being
>> neighbors with Walter was part of the mix, but the prosaic bulk of it
>> is that Walter cared only because of my previous and ongoing 99%
>> transpiration. For better or worse, this state of affairs makes it
>> that whatever I say is perceived as much more intense, imposing,
>> controversial, quirky, or arrogant, than it is, and therefore much
>> more scrutinized and criticized. This reaction is entirely
>> understandable, and I'm still thinking of ways to assuage it. In the
>> meantime it's costing me time because I feel obligated to answer the
>> many replies to my posts.
> 
> 
> Anderi, I think you have a good grasp of the complexity of the situation 
> here, and I think (or is it believe ;) ) you are doing a fine job, if 
> not being a little too accomodating (in terms of trying to respond to 
> everyone): I would have collapsed of exhaustion long ago if I were in 
> your shoes.
> 
> Anyway, keep up the good work.  I think the general D/Walter 
> relationship picture will become clearer the longer your participate.  
> It does seem that D is taking a turn for the better again.
> 
> -JJR

Thank you!

Andrei
October 09, 2008
Re: shouting versus dotting
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote
> John Reimer wrote:
>> Hello Andrei,
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> This is pointing at some being born into royalty while others' good
>>> work is under-compensated. Well in a way I'm glad you bring this up.
>>> One thing that has caused and is causing an amount of stir and
>>> occasional irritation is the perception that I came out of nowhere and
>>> captured Walter's attention effortlessly. The reality is that being
>>> neighbors with Walter was part of the mix, but the prosaic bulk of it
>>> is that Walter cared only because of my previous and ongoing 99%
>>> transpiration. For better or worse, this state of affairs makes it
>>> that whatever I say is perceived as much more intense, imposing,
>>> controversial, quirky, or arrogant, than it is, and therefore much
>>> more scrutinized and criticized. This reaction is entirely
>>> understandable, and I'm still thinking of ways to assuage it. In the
>>> meantime it's costing me time because I feel obligated to answer the
>>> many replies to my posts.
>>
>>
>> Anderi, I think you have a good grasp of the complexity of the situation 
>> here, and I think (or is it believe ;) ) you are doing a fine job, if not 
>> being a little too accomodating (in terms of trying to respond to 
>> everyone): I would have collapsed of exhaustion long ago if I were in 
>> your shoes.
>>
>> Anyway, keep up the good work.  I think the general D/Walter relationship 
>> picture will become clearer the longer your participate.  It does seem 
>> that D is taking a turn for the better again.
>>
>> -JJR
>
> Thank you!
>
> Andrei

I'd also like to thank you Andrei.  Although we don't see eye to eye on 
every issue, I think what you have brought to the table in many areas is 
very good.  That gets overlooked, especially by me, because your ideas are 
mostly in Phobos, which I don't use.  But I agree with most of your ideas.

If I disagree with you it's mostly because I really do disagree, not because 
I perceive that your ideas automatically make it into D without question 
from Walter.

Just some constructive criticism, it would have been a lot less agitating if 
you had stated in your original post:

Background: Walter has allowed ".()" as an alternative to "!()" for template 
argument specifications in the next version of D2 as a trial to see if 
people like it better.

Your original statement implied that it was a fact everyone hated !(), and 
implied that Walter had already blessed the change for D2.  This was the 
point I think that set me off at least.

-Steve
Next ›   Last »
20 21 22 23 24
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home