In article <bs5cu2$22fj$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...

>Did you? I must confess I've forgotten what it was, and apologise for having done so.

In fact, you even answered my e-mail.

The idea of an utility, basically as another language on top of C++. I also explained to what extent it can improve compilation speed. However, i'm still puzzled in what relation the module system should have to the C++ namespace feature. I think i shall post it elsewhere. But i'm not sure since i know i won't have time to write it. D backend would be higher on my priority list, but as you can see i've dropped it as well.

>Busy, busy, busy ...

Same here.

>P.S. If it was a good one, maybe I can put it in "More Imperfect C++" ;)

We'll see. I think it's too heavyweight.

-eye

In article <bs6gpn$1a9p$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Georg Wrede says...

>They seem constantly to take on challenges that you either have to be superhuman or foolhardy to even consider.

I think there was an implementation in Bjarne's Cfront prior to the standard. It was just somewhat broken.

-eye

Georg Wrede wrote:

> In article <bs5t3j$2tvu$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
> 
>>
>>"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
>>news:bs5mtu$2ijt$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>>"Golan Trevize" <golan.trevize@microoroo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:bs52pp$1iqp$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>
>>>>Thought some people would find this interesting.
>>>>http://www.comeaucomputing.com/iso/promises.html
>>>
>>>Should contrast it with this paper on export:
>>>http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1426.pdf
> 
> Having read these brings yet again to my mind that the C++ crowd
> still are the diametric opposite of Practical Programmers. 

Well, I googles around a little for information on template export and realised that the Comeau compiler is the ony one that supports that feature. With that in mind, the Comeau paper mentioned makes a little more sense. If that feature goes away then they'd lose some of their edge.

Regards

Elias Mårtenson

In article <bs6ihl$1crf$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ilya Minkov says...
>
>In article <bs6gpn$1a9p$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Georg Wrede says...
>
>>They seem constantly to take on challenges that you either have to be superhuman or foolhardy to even consider.
>
>I think there was an implementation in Bjarne's Cfront prior to the standard. It was just somewhat broken.

Yes, that was mentioned in the references in the posts.

Having an almost working program for giving you the anwer to "what's the meaning of life?" does't imply that you can really implement one.

"Georg Wrede" <Georg_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bs6gpn$1a9p$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Boy, am I glad that we have Walter and D!

It's the kind of thinking where extreme effort to solve minor problems is justified, but fixing the major problems is not. Export is an example of the former, the reaction I received from proposing Design by Contract in comp.lang.c++.moderated is an example of the latter.

I just got tired of complaining about it, and did D.

The ironic thing about export, though, is that D has it by default simply because D does imports rather than #include's. Export is a classic example of the problem of continuing to add new features into a framework that must still compile 30 years of backwards legacy code. It gets harder and harder to implement and the actual improvements get smaller and smaller.

"Elias Martenson" <elias-m@algonet.se> wrote in message news:bs6k3a$1f7s$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Well, I googles around a little for information on template export and realised that the Comeau compiler is the ony one that supports that feature. With that in mind, the Comeau paper mentioned makes a little more sense. If that feature goes away then they'd lose some of their edge.

Once it is implemented, the incremental cost of keeping it is small, since the investment in creating the feature is already spent. That high cost of implementation is a tall barrier against competitors. It's a powerful motive for any vendor with it implemented to vote to keep it in the standard.

For those who are not compiler vendors, the cost of implementation is irrelevant, only the added value of the feature, however small that might be.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the number of C++ vendors has shrunk, will continue to shrink, and that it has taken so long (5 years) for any vendor to be standard compliant.

Walter wrote:
> "Georg Wrede" <Georg_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
> news:bs6gpn$1a9p$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Boy, am I glad that we have Walter and D!
> 
> 
> It's the kind of thinking where extreme effort to solve minor problems is
> justified, but fixing the major problems is not. Export is an example of the
> former, the reaction I received from proposing Design by Contract in
> comp.lang.c++.moderated is an example of the latter.
> 

What kind of reaction did you get to Design by Contract?  Is there a link to the old Newsgroup discussions? Sounds interesting...

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bs7bd9$2jf9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Georg Wrede" <Georg_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bs6gpn$1a9p$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Boy, am I glad that we have Walter and D!
>
> It's the kind of thinking where extreme effort to solve minor problems is justified, but fixing the major problems is not. Export is an example of
the
> former, the reaction I received from proposing Design by Contract in comp.lang.c++.moderated is an example of the latter.
>
> I just got tired of complaining about it, and did D.

I remember following that thread, It went on for quite some time and I actually think that you let it drag on for to long and it more or less became a religous battle.

I personally think D is great and brave move foward and I hope more people
will start using it.
I'm using it a little and the only thing I really miss is a good source
level debugger (it really is important for some of us some old habits are
hard to break).

> The ironic thing about export, though, is that D has it by default simply because D does imports rather than #include's. Export is a classic example of the problem of continuing to add new features into a framework that
must
> still compile 30 years of backwards legacy code. It gets harder and harder to implement and the actual improvements get smaller and smaller.
>

Modula-2 also uses imports but the Definition and Implementation are in
separate files.
I got admit that I do like the separation at a file level.

GT

"John Reimer" <jjreimer@telus.net> wrote in message news:bs7fl3$2pra$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
> > "Georg Wrede" <Georg_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bs6gpn$1a9p$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >>Boy, am I glad that we have Walter and D!
> > It's the kind of thinking where extreme effort to solve minor problems
is
> > justified, but fixing the major problems is not. Export is an example of
the
> > former, the reaction I received from proposing Design by Contract in comp.lang.c++.moderated is an example of the latter.
> What kind of reaction did you get to Design by Contract?

I'll let you read it for yourself!

> Is there a
> link to the old Newsgroup discussions? Sounds interesting...

Do a google search in groups for ["design by contract" walter] and sort by date.

"Golan Trevize" <golan.trevize@microoroo.com> wrote in message news:bs7gvh$2s3v$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I remember following that thread, It went on for quite some time and I actually think that you let it drag on for to long and it more or less became a religous battle.

I did try to drop out of it before it got too silly, but I think you're right.