In article <btujk6$1rhk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, C says...
>
>http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA028375/contents/D_windows.h.html
>
>Can we PLEASE execpt this is at the standard ?  These are generated by a perl script , so updating would not be a problem , and I have yet to find a function thats not covered by this library.  I've been using for months with no problems at all!
>
>C

YEP. just remove all the // lines, and we can use this. plugged it in, replaced
all stupid A and W, and all the manual written extern(Windows) BOOL
ShowWindow(...) (HEY I HAD TO WRITE THAT ONE!!), and voilà, compiles flawlessly

plug that in Walter, at least till you provide something bether..

Can you use the current phobos win32 headers on Linux / Mac ?

C
"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:btum6u$1vuj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA028375/contents/D_windows.h.html
> >
> >Can we PLEASE execpt this is at the standard ?  These are generated by a perl script , so updating would not be a problem , and I have yet to find
a
> >function thats not covered by this library.  I've been using for months
with
> >no problems at all!
> >
> >C
> Wouldn't this be VERY stupid? Can I use them using Linux: No. When there
is a
> Mac port (I hope there will), would I be able to use it: No. But hey, you suggest it as part of the standard, but I can't use it on most of the
platforms,
> that will hopefully be supported in the future (and partitaly allready are
> (Linux)).
>
>

> replaced all stupid A and W

These are usually correctly aliased depending if you are using win32.ansi , or win32 ( implied unicode ).

C

"davepermen" <davepermen_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:btumg4$20fa$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <btujk6$1rhk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, C says...
> >
> >http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA028375/contents/D_windows.h.html
> >
> >Can we PLEASE execpt this is at the standard ?  These are generated by a perl script , so updating would not be a problem , and I have yet to find
a
> >function thats not covered by this library.  I've been using for months
with
> >no problems at all!
> >
> >C
>
> YEP. just remove all the // lines, and we can use this. plugged it in,
replaced
> all stupid A and W, and all the manual written extern(Windows) BOOL
> ShowWindow(...) (HEY I HAD TO WRITE THAT ONE!!), and voilà, compiles
flawlessly
>
> plug that in Walter, at least till you provide something bether..
>
>

$ grep -rn ShowWindow .
./ansi/winbase.d:2627:  WORD wShowWindow;
./ansi/winbase.d:2650:  WORD wShowWindow;
./ansi/winuser.d:2934:extern(Windows) export BOOL ShowWindow(
./ansi/winuser.d:2983:extern(Windows) export BOOL ShowWindowAsync(
./winbase.d:2918:  WORD wShowWindow;
./winbase.d:2941:  WORD wShowWindow;
./winuser.d:2934:extern(Windows) export BOOL ShowWindow(
./winuser.d:2983:extern(Windows) export BOOL ShowWindowAsync(

Seems its in winuser.

C
"davepermen" <davepermen_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:btumg4$20fa$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <btujk6$1rhk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, C says...
> >
> >http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA028375/contents/D_windows.h.html
> >
> >Can we PLEASE execpt this is at the standard ?  These are generated by a perl script , so updating would not be a problem , and I have yet to find
a
> >function thats not covered by this library.  I've been using for months
with
> >no problems at all!
> >
> >C
>
> YEP. just remove all the // lines, and we can use this. plugged it in,
replaced
> all stupid A and W, and all the manual written extern(Windows) BOOL
> ShowWindow(...) (HEY I HAD TO WRITE THAT ONE!!), and voilà, compiles
flawlessly
>
> plug that in Walter, at least till you provide something bether..
>
>

> All new languages have a major uphill battle with that.  > And I believe
2004

Hear hear!  The year of the D(ragon)!

C
is the year in which we'll get solidly into the game on that.
"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:bttiri$30t$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Georg Wrede" <Georg_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bttfqv$2vic$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I think that discussing the power of a language (or, especially
> > the relative power of languages), has the same inherent problems
> > as discussing Quality. The economist academia have for years tried
> > to come up with an unambiguous, quantifiable, definition for quality,
> > unsuccessfully.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Since the comparison between any two languages ultimately reduces to comparing apples to oranges, we should at least temporarily define what power means.
>
> In an academic sense, yes. But that's not really what I was after. I
wanted
> to know what other peoples' perception of power was, and what they were using as criteria to support the conclusion that C++ was more powerful
than
> D. In other words, I want to understand what I missed either in D or if I just failed in explaining what D can to.
>
> > While doing that, we should also remember that "in reality" power is a street concept that is measured mostly unconsciously.
>
> Yes.
>
> > I assume
> > this includes, in addition to factual language differences, things
> > like usability and applicability for the end user, which includes
> > the easily accessible libraries, number and quality of tools,
> > whether you can ask the guy in the next cubicle for help, etc., etc.
>
> All new languages have a major uphill battle with that. And I believe 2004 is the year in which we'll get solidly into the game on that.
>
>

i was talking about the OLD ones.

In article <btun37$21e9$1@digitaldaemon.com>, C says...
>
>
>> replaced all stupid A and W
>
>These are usually correctly aliased depending if you are using win32.ansi , or win32 ( implied unicode ).
>
>C
>
>"davepermen" <davepermen_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:btumg4$20fa$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> In article <btujk6$1rhk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, C says...
>> >
>> >http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA028375/contents/D_windows.h.html
>> >
>> >Can we PLEASE execpt this is at the standard ?  These are generated by a perl script , so updating would not be a problem , and I have yet to find
>a
>> >function thats not covered by this library.  I've been using for months
>with
>> >no problems at all!
>> >
>> >C
>>
>> YEP. just remove all the // lines, and we can use this. plugged it in,
>replaced
>> all stupid A and W, and all the manual written extern(Windows) BOOL
>> ShowWindow(...) (HEY I HAD TO WRITE THAT ONE!!), and voilà, compiles
>flawlessly
>>
>> plug that in Walter, at least till you provide something bether..
>>
>>
>
>

again i was talking about the OLD ones.

In article <btun6j$21j9$1@digitaldaemon.com>, C says...
>
>$ grep -rn ShowWindow .
>./ansi/winbase.d:2627:  WORD wShowWindow;
>./ansi/winbase.d:2650:  WORD wShowWindow;
>./ansi/winuser.d:2934:extern(Windows) export BOOL ShowWindow(
>./ansi/winuser.d:2983:extern(Windows) export BOOL ShowWindowAsync(
>./winbase.d:2918:  WORD wShowWindow;
>./winbase.d:2941:  WORD wShowWindow;
>./winuser.d:2934:extern(Windows) export BOOL ShowWindow(
>./winuser.d:2983:extern(Windows) export BOOL ShowWindowAsync(
>
>Seems its in winuser.
>
>C
>"davepermen" <davepermen_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
>news:btumg4$20fa$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> In article <btujk6$1rhk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, C says...
>> >
>> >http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA028375/contents/D_windows.h.html
>> >
>> >Can we PLEASE execpt this is at the standard ?  These are generated by a perl script , so updating would not be a problem , and I have yet to find
>a
>> >function thats not covered by this library.  I've been using for months
>with
>> >no problems at all!
>> >
>> >C
>>
>> YEP. just remove all the // lines, and we can use this. plugged it in,
>replaced
>> all stupid A and W, and all the manual written extern(Windows) BOOL
>> ShowWindow(...) (HEY I HAD TO WRITE THAT ONE!!), and voilà, compiles
>flawlessly
>>
>> plug that in Walter, at least till you provide something bether..
>>
>>
>
>

.NET is designed so that other languages can be ported to it as a platform. D can use the .NET libraries once a CIL compiler is made for it.

Sean

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:btul5l$1u8d$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> I assume
> >> this includes, in addition to factual language differences, things
> >> like usability and applicability for the end user, which includes
> >> the easily accessible libraries, number and quality of tools,
> >> whether you can ask the guy in the next cubicle for help, etc., etc.
> >
> >All new languages have a major uphill battle with that. And I believe
2004
> >is the year in which we'll get solidly into the game on that.
> >
> Than you have to do a lot. Do you think you can do something that can be compaired to .NET? This is the libray that comes with a new language (C#)
today.
> Javas library isn't bad as well. I think it will be hard.

This would go into the platform-specific section of the standard runtime library, much as Win32 headers are included with every C/C++ compiler on the Windows platform.  You wouldn't use them and probably wouldn't even have them available on Linux or Mac.

But those of us who write Windows apps NEED a full suite of Win32 functions. The existing Phobos one is far too incomplete to make any sort of simple app with, let alone a real app.

Yeah, Win32 is going to go the way of the dinosaur soon, everything will switch to .NET, but for now we have to have it.

Sean


"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:btum6u$1vuj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA028375/contents/D_windows.h.html
> >
> >Can we PLEASE execpt this is at the standard ?  These are generated by a perl script , so updating would not be a problem , and I have yet to find
a
> >function thats not covered by this library.  I've been using for months
with
> >no problems at all!
> >
> >C
> Wouldn't this be VERY stupid? Can I use them using Linux: No. When there
is a
> Mac port (I hope there will), would I be able to use it: No. But hey, you suggest it as part of the standard, but I can't use it on most of the
platforms,
> that will hopefully be supported in the future (and partitaly allready are
> (Linux)).

"C" <dont@respond.com> wrote in message news:btuium$1qgd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I think C++ has enough add-on s as it is, it starts to feel like a bunch
of
> hacks.

Because of the legacy compatibility problem C++ has, any new additions are pretty much forced into looking like hacks, or are pretty much unimplementable, like export. (Yes, I know EDG proved it could be implemented at enormous expense.)

> Now they're just stuffing it full of everything they can find.

I'm going to defend C++ on that point. Aside from export, I think the features added in to C++ were carefully considered and are defensible. The problems stem from having to fit those features into the legacy framework, and are unavoidable given an unwillingness to break existing code.

> IMO starting a new language was the perfect strategy.  D is so clean , to
me
> being able to express myself clearly and consistently without jumping through hurdles qualifies D as the most powerful ( currently ).

My sentiments exactly!

> I think when honest C++ users start with D ( there is always those who
> cannot let go ), their thoughts well be along the line of :
> "Its about damn time."

That is the reaction I get from most people who are willing to give it an unbiased look. A few who do give it an honest look don't like it, and that's ok, too. Not everyone has the same idea of what a reengineered C++ should look like.