February 16, 2012
On Thursday, 16 February 2012 at 10:08:31 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 2/16/2012 1:00 AM, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
>> The v2.058 tag in the git repo is missing
>
> git tag
>
> shows it's there.

A git pull didn't work for some reason.

I had to do a "git fetch upstream tag v2.058" to see it. Weird.

Thx
Jonas
February 16, 2012
"Andrea Fontana" <advmail@katamail.com> wrote in message news:1329390651.2167.3.camel@ububox...
>Il giorno gio, 16/02/2012 alle 01.29 -0800, Jonathan M Davis ha scritto:
>> On Thursday, February 16, 2012 00:10:20 Caligo wrote:
>> > float x = 1.f;  // GIVES ERROR
>> >
>> > float y = 0.f;  // OK
>> >
>> > what's up with that?  Is that a bug?
>>
>> I would think so.
>>
>Is it trying to call function  f(int x) on 1 with new universal
>syntax? :)

If so, then it *should* be doing the same on 0.f


February 16, 2012
On 02/16/2012 07:10 AM, Caligo wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Jonathan M Davis<jmdavisProg@gmx.com>  wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2012 23:38:33 Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2012 20:47:27 Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> * Allow 1.userproperty syntax
>>>
>>> Where is this odd-sounding beast documented?
>>>
>>> And what is UFCS?
>>
>> Universal Function Call Syntax. The idea is that any function can be called as
>> if it were a member function. The member function call syntax that arrays have
>> is a version of this but isn't general/universal, whereas _universal_ function
>> call syntax would apply to all types. So, stuff like 1.abs() and 5.max(3)
>> become legal. It also means that you can declare functions which take a class
>> or struct as their first parameter and call them as if they were member
>> functions of that class/struct.
>>
>> But it can introduce ambiguities - especially when dealing with structs or
>> classes which can have member functions of their own. So, there's been some
>> debate as to how it should be implemented - or even _if_ it should be
>> implemented, though the basic idea is fairly popular.
>>
>>  From the sound of it, at least property functions with integers can now be
>> used with UFCS, since at least that level of UFCS is required to declare
>> properties for built-in types.
>>
>> @property auto prop(int value) { ... }
>> auto value = 7.prop;
>>
>> But that's just a guess, asthe changelog obviously isn't very descriptive. So,
>> I have no idea what exactly has been implemented for that one line in the
>> changelog - hence my question.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
>
> float x = 1.f;  // GIVES ERROR
>
> float y = 0.f;  // OK
>
> what's up with that?  Is that a bug?

Yes.
February 16, 2012
simendsjo:

> I thought floating point literals should change so 0 is required. No more .0 or 0. .

See:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6277

Bye,
bearophile
February 16, 2012
On Thursday, February 16, 2012 15:27:26 F i L wrote:
> Marco Leise wrote:
> > I'm just repeating what's already been said, but UFCS on classes and structs has the problem of ambiguities with proper methods of those. If 2.058 introduced more UFCS, then it is for literals. Try "123.foo;".
> 
> C#'s had "UFSC" for years without ambiguity problems. Also, "123.foo;" doesn't work.

C# doesn't have free functions. So, how could it have UFCS?

- Jonathan M Davis
February 16, 2012
On 02/16/2012 08:05 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2012 15:27:26 F i L wrote:
>> Marco Leise wrote:
>>> I'm just repeating what's already been said, but UFCS on
>>> classes and structs has the problem of ambiguities with proper
>>> methods of those. If 2.058 introduced more UFCS, then it is for
>>> literals. Try "123.foo;".
>>
>> C#'s had "UFSC" for years without ambiguity problems. Also,
>> "123.foo;" doesn't work.
>
> C# doesn't have free functions. So, how could it have UFCS?
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb383977.aspx
February 16, 2012
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:29:55 +0100, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, February 16, 2012 00:10:20 Caligo wrote:
>> float x = 1.f;  // GIVES ERROR
>>
>> float y = 0.f;  // OK
>>
>> what's up with that?  Is that a bug?
>
> I would think so.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Somewhere in the lexer.
Numbers starting with 0 have a different control flow because of 0x and 0b.
February 16, 2012
On 2012-02-15 09:50, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-02-15 05:47, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Anyone care to count up the number of bug fixes here?
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.073.zip
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>> https://github.com/downloads/D-Programming-Language/dmd/dmd.2.058.zip
>
> Unfortunately my serialization library Orange doesn't completely work
> with 2.058. I've already posted about this to the beta mailing list.
>

I finally found the problem. It turned out to be in my code, sorry for the noise.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
February 16, 2012
On 02/16/2012 08:37 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:29:55 +0100, Jonathan M Davis
> <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 16, 2012 00:10:20 Caligo wrote:
>>> float x = 1.f; // GIVES ERROR
>>>
>>> float y = 0.f; // OK
>>>
>>> what's up with that? Is that a bug?
>>
>> I would think so.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
> Somewhere in the lexer.
> Numbers starting with 0 have a different control flow because of 0x and 0b.

This kind of duplicated control flow seems to be a pervasive problem in DMDs lexer and parser, making hacking on them a nightmare.
February 22, 2012
On 15.02.2012 05:47, Walter Bright wrote:
> Anyone care to count up the number of bug fixes here?
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.073.zip
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> https://github.com/downloads/D-Programming-Language/dmd/dmd.2.058.zip

std.net.curl documentation is missing
Next ›   Last »
1 2 3 4 5
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home