January 15

On Saturday, 14 January 2023 at 22:06:58 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:

>

On 1/14/23 22:24, Walter Bright wrote:

>

On 1/14/2023 10:17 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:

>

On 1/12/23 03:32, Walter Bright wrote:

>

Me too. You all know my practice of putting links to more information in code I write. I've been doing that for a long time. I've found a lot of those older links to Microsoft documentation have become deadends, and google doesn't reveal any replacement.

It's just gone. Poof.

https://archive.org/web/

If they were there, wouldn't google have found them? They disappeared around 2001.

I don't know. I don't remember being pointed towards archived webpages by google, but you can just enter the links there directly and find out.

I never once received a Google query result that pointed to archive.org

It's always me having to explicitly visit the site and enter the url

January 15

On Saturday, 14 January 2023 at 12:15:46 UTC, Dukc wrote:

>

The distinction between recoverable and unrecoverable errors is still relevant. The library author is only picking the default. User still needs to make the decision.

Which they never make. I've never seen an 'assert' preceding a call to to!int in real code.

January 20

On Friday, 6 January 2023 at 13:43:33 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:

>

On Thursday, 5 January 2023 at 23:09:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

>

On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 10:35:37PM +0000, areYouSureAboutThat via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]

>

to be honest, I've never needed a static array in D.

:-D I haven't really used static arrays very much myself, but occasionally they're useful. E.g. in one project where I use a lot of 4-element int arrays, using static arrays for them reduces a lot of GC pressure, and also gives me nice by-value semantics (useful in certain contexts).

[...]

The annoying and shameful thing about this static array size auto-determination is that it is a feature that even K&R C was able to provide. We will probably see men on the Moon again before D is able to do it ;-)

It has been implemented:


scope int[] arr = [10, 20, 30];

In my opinion, it's a much better design than this:


int[$]    arr = [10, 20, 30];
int[..]   arr = [10, 20, 30];
int[auto] arr = [10, 20, 30];

Link: https://dlang.org/changelog/pending.html#dmd.scope-array-on-stack

January 20

On Friday, 20 January 2023 at 15:41:20 UTC, Ki Rill wrote:

>

[...]
It has been implemented:
[...]
Link: https://dlang.org/changelog/pending.html#dmd.scope-array-on-stack

"Change Log: 2.103.0" ???

https://dlang.org/changelog/2.102.0.html#log_float_double_implementations
https://dlang.org/changelog/pending.html#log_float_double_implementations

One change in two versions?

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Next ›   Last »