Jump to page: 1 220  
Page
Thread overview
Regarding the proposed Binray Literals Deprecation
Sep 09
IGotD-
Sep 09
Dave P.
Sep 11
TheGag96
Sep 10
mw
Sep 10
mw
Sep 10
mw
Sep 10
mw
Sep 10
mw
Sep 10
Sergey
Sep 10
mw
Sep 10
mw
Sep 10
matheus
Sep 10
Dave P.
Sep 11
mw
Sep 12
Kagamin
Sep 10
0xEAB
Sep 10
0xEAB
Sep 11
0xEAB
Sep 13
wjoe
Sep 13
Don Allen
Sep 13
Daniel N
Sep 13
Don Allen
Sep 13
Don Allen
Sep 14
wjoe
Sep 14
monkyyy
Sep 14
jmh530
Sep 14
Daniel N
Sep 17
Loara
Sep 17
0xEAB
Sep 18
Loara
Sep 18
Loara
Sep 20
Kagamin
Sep 17
Preetpal
Sep 17
Preetpal
Sep 18
Don Allen
Sep 18
Preetpal
Sep 18
Don Allen
Sep 18
Preetpal
Sep 21
Don Allen
Sep 22
Tejas
Sep 18
Don Allen
Sep 14
Daniel N
Sep 14
Daniel N
Sep 14
Daniel N
Sep 14
claptrap
Sep 15
Dukc
Sep 15
Don Allen
Sep 17
0xEAB
Sep 17
0xEAB
Sep 18
zjh
Sep 21
Zealot
Sep 14
wjoe
Sep 13
IGotD-
Sep 14
wjoe
Sep 10
Daniel N
Sep 10
Daniel N
Sep 12
Kagamin
Sep 12
Kagamin
Sep 12
Kagamin
Sep 12
Kagamin
Sep 10
IGotD-
Sep 10
Sergey
Sep 10
mw
Sep 10
mw
Sep 10
IGotD-
Sep 11
Tejas
Sep 10
Dennis
Sep 10
Don Allen
Sep 12
jmh530
Sep 12
IGotD-
Sep 13
Don Allen
Sep 13
jmh530
Sep 14
jmh530
Sep 14
Don Allen
Sep 14
jmh530
Sep 14
Daniel N
Sep 15
Daniel N
Sep 15
zjh
Sep 17
0xEAB
Sep 12
Kagamin
Sep 09
0xEAB
Sep 10
0xEAB
Sep 10
MrSmith33
September 09

I recently saw a talk by Walter Bright in the recently concluded DConf where Walter made a case for dropping compiler support for Binary literals.

I use Dlang for hardware. Binary literals are scattered everywhere in my code. D is a systems programming language. And thanks to industry-wide FPGA/CPU consolidation, programmable hardware is projected to grow big in the coming years.

Please reconsider binary literal deprecation.

September 09

On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 16:55:18 UTC, Puneet Goel wrote:

>

I recently saw a talk by Walter Bright in the recently concluded DConf where Walter made a case for dropping compiler support for Binary literals.

I use Dlang for hardware. Binary literals are scattered everywhere in my code. D is a systems programming language. And thanks to industry-wide FPGA/CPU consolidation, programmable hardware is projected to grow big in the coming years.

Please reconsider binary literal deprecation.

Why would you want to drop binary literals which are useful for near HW programming? It's just a literal why would that be so hard to support?

September 09

On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 16:55:18 UTC, Puneet Goel wrote:

>

I recently saw a talk by Walter Bright in the recently concluded DConf where Walter made a case for dropping compiler support for Binary literals.

I use Dlang for hardware. Binary literals are scattered everywhere in my code. D is a systems programming language. And thanks to industry-wide FPGA/CPU consolidation, programmable hardware is projected to grow big in the coming years.

Please reconsider binary literal deprecation.

Same here. Please leave the binary literals alone. In general, "I haven't needed this feature for a long time/my friends don't use it" is a terrible indicator of what is/may be useful.

September 09
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 05:52:37PM +0000, Max Samukha via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 16:55:18 UTC, Puneet Goel wrote:
> > I recently saw a talk by Walter Bright in the recently concluded DConf where Walter made a case for dropping compiler support for Binary literals.
> > 
> > I use Dlang for hardware. Binary literals are scattered everywhere in my code. D is a systems programming language. And thanks to industry-wide FPGA/CPU consolidation, programmable hardware is projected to grow big in the coming years.
> > 
> > Please reconsider binary literal deprecation.
> 
> Same here. Please leave the binary literals alone. In general, "I haven't needed this feature for a long time/my friends don't use it" is a terrible indicator of what is/may be useful.

I also oppose dropping binary literals. Although I don't use them often, the few times I do need them I'm very glad they are there. I consider it one of the niceties of D that C missed, and would be rather disappointed if we dropped it. It would be a pain to have to resort to a template just so I can use binary literals.


T

-- 
Любишь кататься - люби и саночки возить.
September 09
On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 16:55:18 UTC, Puneet Goel wrote:
> I recently saw a talk by Walter Bright in the recently concluded DConf where Walter made a case for dropping compiler support for Binary literals.

He thought it was already dropped.... and the octal drop btw wasn't really that much of a success either. We should have went with 0o.
September 09
On 09.09.22 21:13, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
> On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 16:55:18 UTC, Puneet Goel wrote:
>> I recently saw a talk by Walter Bright in the recently concluded DConf where Walter made a case for dropping compiler support for Binary literals.
> 
> He thought it was already dropped.... and the octal drop btw wasn't really that much of a success either. We should have went with 0o.

+1.
September 09

On 9/9/22 3:13 PM, Adam D Ruppe wrote:

>

On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 16:55:18 UTC, Puneet Goel wrote:

>

I recently saw a talk by Walter Bright in the recently concluded DConf where Walter made a case for dropping compiler support for Binary literals.

He thought it was already dropped.... and the octal drop btw wasn't really that much of a success either. We should have went with 0o.

Deprecating 0-leading literals to mean octal is and will always be a success.

The octal literal template -- meh. It functions. I don't think it's a thing we need to highlight. It runs a simple parser at CTFE which isn't nearly as cheap as the octal parser in the compiler.

The truly ironic thing is that the compiler is still correctly parsing octal literals, so it can tell you how to write them with std.conv.octal ;)

-Steve

September 09
On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 20:35:49 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Deprecating 0-leading literals to mean octal is and will always be a success.

Well, yeah, that was a silly syntax. I don't know what the C designers were thinking with that.

But using 0o solves all those problems.

> It runs a simple parser at CTFE which isn't nearly as cheap as the octal parser in the compiler.

Well it isn't like the cheapness really matters tbh since it is a small job. And it is a kinda cool technique that D can do it. I use it in other places too.

Just compared to the 0x and 0b and a prospective 0o.... you're right, it is solidly meh.

September 09
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:54:08PM +0000, Adam D Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 20:35:49 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > Deprecating 0-leading literals to mean octal is and will always be a success.
> 
> Well, yeah, that was a silly syntax. I don't know what the C designers were thinking with that.

+1.


> But using 0o solves all those problems.

+1. 0o totally makes sense for octal, just as 0x totally makes sense for hexadecimal.


> > It runs a simple parser at CTFE which isn't nearly as cheap as the octal parser in the compiler.
> 
> Well it isn't like the cheapness really matters tbh since it is a small job.  And it is a kinda cool technique that D can do it. I use it in other places too.
> 
> Just compared to the 0x and 0b and a prospective 0o.... you're right, it is solidly meh.

+1.


T

-- 
Famous last words: I *think* this will work...
September 09
On 9/9/2022 1:35 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> The octal literal template -- meh. It functions. I don't think it's a thing we need to highlight. It runs a simple parser at CTFE which isn't nearly as cheap as the octal parser in the compiler.

That's because it's poorly implemented and overly complex. The implementation I showed in my presentation at Dconf is much simpler.

If you're using a lot of octal literals such that this is an issue, one wonders, what for? The only use I know of is for Unix file permissions.


> The truly ironic thing is that the compiler is still correctly parsing octal literals, so it can tell you how to write them with std.conv.octal ;)

To make transition easier. Simplifying the language has a lot of downstream simplifications.
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11