imr1984 wrote:
> In article <bupb1u$1tp$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Stephan Wienczny says...
> 
>>imr1984 wrote:
>>
>>>So is someone going to post a link / post the updated version ?
>>>
>>
>>You can get it from:
>>
>>http://d.wienczny.de
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> sorry to bring this old subject up again, but id just though id point out that
> the class doesnt follow the D naming convections. Sorry if im being fussy, its
> quite nice otherwise.
> 
> By the way, is there any chance well see generic linked lists being built into
> the D language?
> 
> 
How should it be named else? I disliked the names but didn't have any better idea when writing!

To the other point:
Maybe. When I started my try own d-compiler projekt and thought about the basic types it should support, I came to the conclusion list became something like a basic type.
One could have the backend to generate the list code.

Stephan

"imr1984" <imr1984_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bvbth9$27n$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <bupb1u$1tp$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Stephan Wienczny says...
> >
> >imr1984 wrote:
> >> So is someone going to post a link / post the updated version ?
> >>
> >
> >You can get it from:
> >
> >http://d.wienczny.de
> >
> >
> >
>
> sorry to bring this old subject up again, but id just though id point out
that
> the class doesnt follow the D naming convections. Sorry if im being fussy,
its
> quite nice otherwise.
>
> By the way, is there any chance well see generic linked lists being built
into
> the D language?

We're going to be working on the DTL in Feb/Mar.

so that means generic lists will be in the DTL, and not part of the language itself? shame. Well im happy that at least something official is being made :)

In article <bvc1cg$8if$4@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>
>
>"imr1984" <imr1984_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bvbth9$27n$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> In article <bupb1u$1tp$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Stephan Wienczny says...
>> >
>> >imr1984 wrote:
>> >> So is someone going to post a link / post the updated version ?
>> >>
>> >
>> >You can get it from:
>> >
>> >http://d.wienczny.de
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> sorry to bring this old subject up again, but id just though id point out
>that
>> the class doesnt follow the D naming convections. Sorry if im being fussy,
>its
>> quite nice otherwise.
>>
>> By the way, is there any chance well see generic linked lists being built
>into
>> the D language?
>
>We're going to be working on the DTL in Feb/Mar.
>
>

> so that means generic lists will be in the DTL, and not part of the
language
> itself? shame.

Is it a shame? I'm a big fan of the C++/Stroustrup vision where everything that does not _have_ to be in the language goes in the libraries.

The difference between C++ and D is that D is new, and we have the ability to put those things that _should_ be in the language in there, rather than having to perform ridiculous mental acrobatics to get the simplest after-the-fact concepts supported.

This is well exemplified in the likes of Boost and STLSoft. For my part, I find most of the Boost code utterly impenetrable, and I know several *very* cluey people who feel the same. But I have used similarly complex techniques in the STLSoft libraries, which those same *very* cluey people find equally impenetrable. The point, I think is that C++ is on the verge of being unmanageably complex, and only the authors or diligent students of modern leading-edge libraries can understand them. This is not a good position for a language to be in.

It is our intention, with the DTL specifically, that all the wonderful - and they are wonderful, to be sure - things that can be currently be achieved in C++ are also achieveable in D, but in a more inclusive fashion. In other words, there'll be no need for TMP (template meta programming) super-gurus (and the egos they bring along with them), and the code will be accessible to any *reasonably* cluey individual.

> Well im happy that at least something official is being made :)

You should hang fire on that happiness. It might be a load of old crap ... ;)


> In article <bvc1cg$8if$4@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> >
> >
> >"imr1984" <imr1984_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bvbth9$27n$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> In article <bupb1u$1tp$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Stephan Wienczny says...
> >> >
> >> >imr1984 wrote:
> >> >> So is someone going to post a link / post the updated version ?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >You can get it from:
> >> >
> >> >http://d.wienczny.de
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> sorry to bring this old subject up again, but id just though id point
out
> >that
> >> the class doesnt follow the D naming convections. Sorry if im being
fussy,
> >its
> >> quite nice otherwise.
> >>
> >> By the way, is there any chance well see generic linked lists being
built
> >into
> >> the D language?
> >
> >We're going to be working on the DTL in Feb/Mar.
> >
> >
>
>

Matthew wrote:

>>so that means generic lists will be in the DTL, and not part of the
> 
> language
> 
>>itself? shame.
> 
> 
> Is it a shame? I'm a big fan of the C++/Stroustrup vision where everything
> that does not _have_ to be in the language goes in the libraries.
> 

That brings something to mind.  Does D still need to have associative arrays built into the language?

 -- andy

"Andy Friesen" <andy@ikagames.com> wrote in message news:bvcg4d$vhh$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>
> >>so that means generic lists will be in the DTL, and not part of the
> >
> > language
> >
> >>itself? shame.
> >
> >
> > Is it a shame? I'm a big fan of the C++/Stroustrup vision where
everything
> > that does not _have_ to be in the language goes in the libraries.
> >
>
> That brings something to mind.  Does D still need to have associative arrays built into the language?

Aha! I was wondering when someone was going to ask that.

It does seem arbitrary, to be sure.

From a small perspective, the question will be resolved if we manage to write a smaller, faster, easier-to-use ass-arr library.

On a larger perspective, it's probably going to seem a little arbitrary to have them in, but I think they're overwhelmingly likely to stay. We'll look back on it all fondly, and recognise the hand of Walter in there. :)