Ian Johnston wrote:
> Adding a D generator to the SWIG package would surely go a long way to
> alleviating many of these problems.

There already is one. Andy  wrote it. Here, scroll down.

http://ikagames.com/andy/d/

-eye

>> I use stuff like template-templates from time to time. This is a VERY
>powerfull
>> thing. And AFAIK only C++ supports this.
>
>D supports it now! (The template alias parameters.)
>
It does? Damn, (me to myself: "RTFM").

>> ...
>2.0!

I seems like I have to wait for a long time.

we should bether have some sort of standard - place, where we can share all components together. that way, if you want to use win32, you download the win32 package of d. if you want to use opengl, you take the opengl package.. sdl? sdl package. image loading? FreeImage package (wich i made last night), etc..

one common place for sources, and libraries. but the std, free of anything "useful".. merely something like stl, a.k.a. often required generic tools

In article <bu1ab9$92u$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthias Becker says...
>
>>Can you use the current phobos win32 headers on Linux / Mac ?
>
>Do we have to make mistakes we did in the past again and again?
>
>Compiler-vendors may deliver something like this with their compiler, but making it a part of the standard-library is stupip. Perhaps a special definition of library-extentions for specific platforms would be an idea, so you have an advanced set for Windows (Win32 stuff), Unix (POSIX, ...) and so on.
>
>It's OK, if there is a stanrad, but IMO it mustn't be a part of THE D-Standard.
>
>

What mistakes are you refering to ?  On one hand we have people say the library will never be enough to compete with .net , on the other hand you got people that don't want anything in the standard library.  My original stance was to remove platform specific components , but since its likely that wont happen , then lets adpot some usable win32 headers.

C

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bu1ab9$92u$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >Can you use the current phobos win32 headers on Linux / Mac ?
>
> Do we have to make mistakes we did in the past again and again?
>
> Compiler-vendors may deliver something like this with their compiler, but
making
> it a part of the standard-library is stupip. Perhaps a special definition
of
> library-extentions for specific platforms would be an idea, so you have an
> advanced set for Windows (Win32 stuff), Unix (POSIX, ...) and so on.
>
> It's OK, if there is a stanrad, but IMO it mustn't be a part of THE
D-Standard.
>
>

You seem to have very limited vision.  Because you don't use its not an important language feature ?

And refereing to another post, many of us use D on a daily basis.  I now use it more than C++ , perhaps you should start using it , maybe the actual use of the language will give you some insight.

C

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:btukae$1sq6$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >D has many very powerful features that C++ does not have, such as nested functions and inline assembly. C++ has features that D does not have,
such
> >as a preprocessor and virtual base classes. While no definitive answer is possible since eventually one starts comparing apples to oranges, what in your view makes C++ more powerful than D?
> >
> Nested functions is a real plus für D. Inline assmbly isn't realy (at
least for
> me). Most C++ compilers have this ability, too. And if I use such a
feature I
> become somewhat unportable so it doesn't matter that I use a compiler
specific
> extension.
> For me it's only important that my programm runs on a Windows-PC and A
MacOS X
> Mac.
> I use stuff like template-templates from time to time. This is a VERY
powerfull
> thing. And AFAIK only C++ supports this.
>
> Anyway D's generic ability are much better in the new version. This is the
first
> version of D that I realy like.
> Maybe version 1.0 will be a real alternative.
> BTW, what about mixins? Are they alredy implemented (seen anything about
them).
> If not, are they still planed to be implemented?
>
>

While it was 1/1/04 12:03 am throughout the UK, Mark T sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
> I really only have 1
> 
> 1) That the D language version 1.0 is finalized and released in 2004. The window
> of opportunity closes a little each year for getting a new language off the
> ground and adopted by a decent sized developer community so it doesn't die a
> premature death.  I can't use it at work unless it becomes popular.

Good idea I reckon.  Especially:
(a) implementation of array arithmetic
(b) getting std.file.read and std.file.write working

Re (a): which are actually supposed to be supported?  DMD 0.77 reports a mixture of coding errors and not implemented errors when I try them.
- array op scalar
- array op array
- scalar op array
- array op= scalar
- array op= array
- ...

on which operations?  Should each work on all of +, -, *, / and whichever others?

2) Array aggregate properties like sum, product, maximum and minimum. This would have its potential for parallelisation, and also lead to a nice, concise notation for the dot product of vectors:

	(v1 * v2).sum

Of course putting maximum and minimum in raises the issue of avoiding confusion with the .max and .min properties on data types.

3) A Mac OS X implementation, I guess.

OK, so maybe the chances of 1, 2 and 3 being completed before I finish my PhD are fairly slim....

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

In article <bu1ab9$92u$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthias Becker says...
>
>>Can you use the current phobos win32 headers on Linux / Mac ?
>
>Do we have to make mistakes we did in the past again and again?
>
>Compiler-vendors may deliver something like this with their compiler, but making it a part of the standard-library is stupip. Perhaps a special definition of library-extentions for specific platforms would be an idea, so you have an advanced set for Windows (Win32 stuff), Unix (POSIX, ...) and so on.
>
>It's OK, if there is a stanrad, but IMO it mustn't be a part of THE D-Standard.

Putting win32 headers in the 'standard library' is.... weird.  win32 isn't exactly the sort of thing that belongs in a standard library.  I don't think anybody is arguing that they should be, though.

What does matter is whether it's packaged with DMD.  (which it should be)  At the very least, it could be linked on digitalmars.com in some obvious place.

-- andy

Cool can you send me the freeimage package ?  I use that for C++ also.

C

"davepermen" <davepermen_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bu1bhd$b46$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> we should bether have some sort of standard - place, where we can share
all
> components together. that way, if you want to use win32, you download the
win32
> package of d. if you want to use opengl, you take the opengl package..
sdl? sdl
> package. image loading? FreeImage package (wich i made last night), etc..
>
> one common place for sources, and libraries. but the std, free of anything "useful".. merely something like stl, a.k.a. often required generic tools
>
> In article <bu1ab9$92u$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthias Becker says...
> >
> >>Can you use the current phobos win32 headers on Linux / Mac ?
> >
> >Do we have to make mistakes we did in the past again and again?
> >
> >Compiler-vendors may deliver something like this with their compiler, but
making
> >it a part of the standard-library is stupip. Perhaps a special definition
of
> >library-extentions for specific platforms would be an idea, so you have
an
> >advanced set for Windows (Win32 stuff), Unix (POSIX, ...) and so on.
> >
> >It's OK, if there is a stanrad, but IMO it mustn't be a part of THE
D-Standard.
> >
> >
>
>

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bu19s0$88l$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >There's just no way D will get a library comparable in breadth to .net
and
> >java in 2004. But I don't see that as necessary to the near term success
of
> >D. However, I expect to see the emergence of tools to aid in getting existing C and C++ libraries to work with D. And that will help a lot.
> >
> Bad for me, as I haven't seen any library written in C, that I realy
liked.

What libraries would you like to see in D?

i'd prefer to put that into
"THE BIG D LIBRARY TREE FOR EVERYONE"
so that anyone can use it.. :D

for the time being, its in my shares.. http://davepermen.net.. just download the lib.rar and phobos.rar i think, there it should be in..

it doesn't have all features (heck, it ***ing late, even simple enums porting was VERY CONCENTRATION REQUESTING! wich i didn't had:D). so all stuff with function pointers isn't in yet..

enough to display a texture in opengl.. :D

both an opengl and an sdl share should get into "THE BIG D LIBRARY TREE FOR EVERYONE".. :D

In article <bu1dbq$ebg$1@digitaldaemon.com>, C says...
>
>Cool can you send me the freeimage package ?  I use that for C++ also.
>
>C
>
>"davepermen" <davepermen_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bu1bhd$b46$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> we should bether have some sort of standard - place, where we can share
>all
>> components together. that way, if you want to use win32, you download the
>win32
>> package of d. if you want to use opengl, you take the opengl package..
>sdl? sdl
>> package. image loading? FreeImage package (wich i made last night), etc..
>>
>> one common place for sources, and libraries. but the std, free of anything "useful".. merely something like stl, a.k.a. often required generic tools
>>
>> In article <bu1ab9$92u$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthias Becker says...
>> >
>> >>Can you use the current phobos win32 headers on Linux / Mac ?
>> >
>> >Do we have to make mistakes we did in the past again and again?
>> >
>> >Compiler-vendors may deliver something like this with their compiler, but
>making
>> >it a part of the standard-library is stupip. Perhaps a special definition
>of
>> >library-extentions for specific platforms would be an idea, so you have
>an
>> >advanced set for Windows (Win32 stuff), Unix (POSIX, ...) and so on.
>> >
>> >It's OK, if there is a stanrad, but IMO it mustn't be a part of THE
>D-Standard.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>