In article <i2hqd3-397.ln1@birke.kuehne.cn>, Thomas Kuehne says...
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Dave schrieb am 2006-03-05:
>> Has this been reported as a bug over in D.bugs?
>
>http://dstress.kuehne.cn/www/dstress.html#private_12_B
>
>Thomas
>

Thanks Thomas.

- Dave

Bruno Medeiros schrieb am 2006-03-05:
> Thomas Kuehne wrote:
>> 
>> Dave schrieb am 2006-03-05:
>>> In article <op.s5wvjbrq6b8z09@ginger.vic.bigpond.net.au>, Derek Parnell says... Has this been reported as a bug over in D.bugs?
>> 
>> http://dstress.kuehne.cn/www/dstress.html#private_12_B
>> 
>
> Oops, this means I reported the bug twice. :/ Maybe it is time to look
> in that bugzilla.
> But anyway, does you assigning it a test case make it an officially
> recognized bug?

Officialy recognized by me :P

DStress isn't associated with Walter, Digitalmars or David.

Thomas

"Cris" <central_p@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dudk7f$1gj3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I know this is a huge task but perhaps you can start some sort of committee to overlook and develop such "standard" features?

These are all good points, but there's just me at this end <g>. If there's anything you want to take charge of, even something as simple as writing a brief tutorial on some aspect of D, please do so!

"Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:due89q$2c2b$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> At least you know it's a function call, rather than a declaration of x of type f!

And I still don't know if x is in, out, or inout.  You didn't really respond to my post, _as usual_.

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Derek Parnell wrote:
>> <Ben_member@pathlink.com> wrote:
>>> Imho, we just need a standardized "clone" method (like .dup) that can
>>> be used
>>> for assigning.
>>
>> YES! And a syntax to support opDup().  The "=" means assign, so why not have another operator to mean copy-the-data-not-just-the-reference? ":=" has been suggested but there could be other great ideas.
>>
> 
> Hum, yes!, ideally we could two pairs of operators, each for setting/testing the reference/instance_data
> 
> =    Assign the reference to an object (currently: = )
> ==    Test for identity, aka same reference (currently: is )
> :=    Copy the object. (nothing similar)
> :==    Test for equality, aka same instance data ( currently: == )
> 
> This is just the structural idea, the name/symbols of these operators could be something other and better (and I think this choice would be a very important aspect of this feature).
> 
> 

I think these have been proposed few times before. The existence of a "standardized" dup or clone that can be overridden is extremely important now that we aren't (thank God) able to overload standard assignment operator '='. How else would it be possible to 'deep clone' classes clearly?

I like the ':=' as a copy/assign operator. However currently '==' is semantically closer to '==' with basic types (ints, chars, ...) because it compares the contents and not references. I think 'is' and '==' both should stay and not introduce a new ':==' - it doesn't look very cute on all editors either.

-- 
Jari-Matti

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dufetm$r5v$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:due89q$2c2b$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> At least you know it's a function call, rather than a declaration of x of type f!
>
> And I still don't know if x is in, out, or inout.  You didn't really respond to my post, _as usual_.

Sure I did. My post was an aknowledgement that f(x) doesn't tell you if x is in, out, or inout. What exactly are you looking for?

"Sebastián E. Peyrott" <as7cf@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dudqs0$1qkh$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I agree. I think there's no compelling reason to allow referencing files according to the relative path of the current module. In fact, I think the current behaviour enforces a more organized development structure.

I agree as well. For example, in Phobos, the std.* modules, when they import other std modules, use:

    import std.foo;

as opposed to:

    import foo;

which is what it would be if relative imports were done.

"Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:dufi31> > Sure I did. My post was an aknowledgement that f(x) doesn't tell you if x is
> in, out, or inout. What exactly are you looking for?

Your opinion on the matter, perhaps?  What you posted was kind of indirectly related to the subject, but didn't really tell me how you feel about out/inout at the call site.  To me, it came across as defensive, and a bit evasive.

Please reply with your feelings on the matter of out/inout at the call site, and if that would make code more readable/inspectible/self-documenting.

I think Walter is really only describing things in terms of this topic; that is, as compared to C++ it is still much better.  He has avoided comparisons with other languages in this thread many other times.

I wouldn't say he's being evasive or defensive.  He's just not responding to your off-topic comment (which has been brought up before many times.)

Having lead public project development before, I completely understand his reluctance to publicly post his opinion on some matter, especially if he hasn't really given it enough thought yet.  Even if you "got something out of him", it would simply mean nothing or cause problems.

-[Unknown]


> "Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:dufi31> > Sure I did. My post was an aknowledgement that f(x) doesn't tell you if x is
>> in, out, or inout. What exactly are you looking for?
> 
> Your opinion on the matter, perhaps?  What you posted was kind of indirectly related to the subject, but didn't really tell me how you feel about out/inout at the call site.  To me, it came across as defensive, and a bit evasive.
> 
> Please reply with your feelings on the matter of out/inout at the call site, and if that would make code more readable/inspectible/self-documenting. 
> 
> 

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:54:22 +1100, Unknown W. Brackets <unknown@simplemachines.org> wrote:

> I think Walter is really only describing things in terms of this topic; that is, as compared to C++ it is still much better.  He has avoided comparisons with other languages in this thread many other times.
>
> I wouldn't say he's being evasive or defensive.  He's just not responding to your off-topic comment (which has been brought up before many times.)

Walter is very generous with his limited time, considering the pressure we place him, and sometimes Walter doesn't respond to on-topic questions either. Hopefully that's because he's too busy and just misses than rather than deliberately ignoring them.

> Having lead public project development before, I completely understand his reluctance to publicly post his opinion on some matter, especially if he hasn't really given it enough thought yet.  Even if you "got something out of him", it would simply mean nothing or cause problems.

But sometimes a simple "I'm still looking into that" would be nice.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia