Menu
Search

Forums

Forum Index

September 06
Gravatar of user1234Posted by user1234
in reply to Nick Treleaven		Reply
user1234
Gravatar of user1234
Posted in reply to Nick Treleaven


Reply

On Thursday, 5 September 2024 at 19:32:52 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:

>

On Thursday, 5 September 2024 at 14:22:56 UTC, Quirin Schroll wrote:

>

In fact, it was me who named it TypeSuffix; before, it was BasicType2X

Thanks!

>

StaticArray:
[ AssignExpression ]

A type sequence can be indexed, so calling it StaticArray would be confusing.

That does not matter. What matters is how the construct is initially parsed then in the specs you define "if the StaticArray sub-type resolves to a sequence then ... ". But then you also have to define types like exposed in https://forum.dlang.org/post/kabzzfxlwgyzoidpxcbe@forum.dlang.org, i.e drop the suffix idea and in favor of the recursive descent style.

September 11
Gravatar of WBPosted by WB
in reply to Nick Treleaven		Reply
WB
Gravatar of WB
Posted in reply to Nick Treleaven


Reply

On Wednesday, 4 September 2024 at 17:31:53 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:

>

On Monday, 2 September 2024 at 16:35:11 UTC, monkyyy wrote:

>

Good docs for what seq does, doesnt exist; period. You have to learn from trail and error.

What's wrong with:

>

So maybe https://dlang.org/spec/template.html#variadic-templates , where more specifically https://dlang.org/spec/template.html#seq-ops mentions slicing operation on these sequences ?

The problem is that these two places are not mentioned anywhere on the page where grammar rules are present for them ( https://dlang.org/spec/grammar.html#TypeSuffix and https://dlang.org/spec/type.html#grammar ), making it hard to discover / understand.

September 13
Gravatar of Nick TreleavenPosted by Nick Treleaven
in reply to WB		Reply
Nick Treleaven
Gravatar of Nick Treleaven
Posted in reply to WB


Reply

On Wednesday, 11 September 2024 at 18:49:52 UTC, WB wrote:

>

The problem is that these two places are not mentioned anywhere on the page where grammar rules are present for them ( https://dlang.org/spec/grammar.html#TypeSuffix and

BTW that page is just auto-generated from the grammar sections in each part of the spec.

>

https://dlang.org/spec/type.html#grammar ), making it hard to discover / understand.

That was true, though when I read this thread I added a link to type sequences here:
https://dlang.org/spec/type.html#derived-data-types

September 13
Gravatar of monkyyyPosted by monkyyy
in reply to Nick Treleaven		Reply
monkyyy
Gravatar of monkyyy
Posted in reply to Nick Treleaven


Reply

On Friday, 13 September 2024 at 09:20:22 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:

>

On Wednesday, 11 September 2024 at 18:49:52 UTC, WB wrote:

>

The problem is that these two places are not mentioned anywhere on the page where grammar rules are present for them ( https://dlang.org/spec/grammar.html#TypeSuffix and

BTW that page is just auto-generated from the grammar sections in each part of the spec.

Which is why the spec is worthless for learning anything

The spec is only for bug report debates, which probaly shouldnt be such prominent a feature of dlang

September 13
Gravatar of Timon GehrPosted by Timon Gehr
in reply to monkyyy		Reply
Timon Gehr
Gravatar of Timon Gehr
Posted in reply to monkyyy


Reply
On 9/13/24 13:00, monkyyy wrote:
> On Friday, 13 September 2024 at 09:20:22 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 11 September 2024 at 18:49:52 UTC, WB wrote:
>>> The problem is that these two places are not mentioned anywhere on the page where grammar rules are present for them ( https:// dlang.org/spec/grammar.html#TypeSuffix and
>>
>> BTW that page is just auto-generated from the grammar sections in each part of the spec.
> 
> Which is why the spec is worthless for learning anything
> 
> The spec is only for bug report debates, which probaly shouldnt be such prominent a feature of dlang

FWIW I learned the language by reading the spec.
September 13
Gravatar of Nick TreleavenPosted by Nick Treleaven
in reply to monkyyy		Reply
Nick Treleaven
Gravatar of Nick Treleaven
Posted in reply to monkyyy


Reply

On Friday, 13 September 2024 at 11:00:50 UTC, monkyyy wrote:

>

On Friday, 13 September 2024 at 09:20:22 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:

>

BTW that page is just auto-generated from the grammar sections in each part of the spec.

Which is why the spec is worthless for learning anything

Why would you try to learn from a page only listing grammar, instead of reading the spec pages?

September 13
Gravatar of monkyyyPosted by monkyyy
in reply to Nick Treleaven		Reply
monkyyy
Gravatar of monkyyy
Posted in reply to Nick Treleaven


Reply

On Friday, 13 September 2024 at 12:18:16 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:

>

On Friday, 13 September 2024 at 11:00:50 UTC, monkyyy wrote:

>

On Friday, 13 September 2024 at 09:20:22 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:

>

BTW that page is just auto-generated from the grammar sections in each part of the spec.

Which is why the spec is worthless for learning anything

Why would you try to learn from a page only listing grammar, instead of reading the spec pages?

I wouldnt and didnt read any part of the spec to learn anything, I mostly use it for the formal names of things and bug report debates; I dont consider it relivent at all.

There are at least 4 better ways to learn d, and one of them is "lol, just write code without anything"

« First   ‹ Prev
1 2
Next ›   Last »