On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 05:35:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I find that it's much more convincing for me to say "feature X
is
broken, here's the code change to make it better", than to say
"feature
X is broken, D sucks, you lazy bums better start working to fix
X or
else I'm leaving". It
On Saturday, 7 September 2013 at 00:05:08 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 19:24:22 UTC, Ramon wrote:
Frankly, when hacking the kernel you use C, period. There are
alternatives, Ada for instance but they have a price tag too.
And
D, with all the warm feelings we might have
eles
Risking to find myself in hot water ...
I think that gc is grossly overestimated and it's too often
painted in promised land colours. For one, there are, of course,
trade offs; sometimes gc's advantages outweigh the disadvantages,
sometimes not and close to hardware basically hardly ever
OK, OK, completely overblown but for the sake of the point: Well,
if you bend and strip down Clarion or php far enough, you might
use it for
a kernel, too.
Frankly, when hacking the kernel you use C, period. There are
alternatives, Ada for instance but they have a price tag too. And
D, with all
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 07:02:56 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Dynamic arrays are just structs with a length and ptr field.
So when
you invoke '.length' in the debugger you aren't calling a
method, you
are just retrieving the type's field value.
Currently, the only fancy thing the gdb does
On Thursday, 5 September 2013 at 23:58:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Thanks and
@Iain: on that note, it looks like gdb thinks it's debugging
C++, but D
doesn't have anything called 'operator[]'. It would be Really
Nice if we
could somehow coax gdb to use opIndex instead (though it
doesn't really
On D's, and in particular GDC's, way to conquer the world there
will evidently be many newbies to notice D, look at it, be drawn
to it (and be happily trapped).
I am such a newbie and the idea behind this thread is to collect
all the issues, quirks and nuisances a newbie might encounter.
Pleas
On Thursday, 5 September 2013 at 22:25:27 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 12:18:44AM +0200, Ramon wrote:
The compiler switch '-debug' isn't recognized (which isn't a
problem
per se, but...)
"debug" statements in the code are ignored.
Example:
..
The compiler switch '-debug' isn't recognized (which isn't a
problem per se, but...)
"debug" statements in the code are ignored.
Example:
...
debug
writeln("DBG: var X is: ", X, "'");
...
When in the debugger (gdb) the "debug" section (the 2 lines
above) are simply ignored/stepped over.
Iain,
I'm very pleased to inform you that this issue is solved in
gdc-4.8.
I test installed aptosid and gdc 4.8 and my code compiles fine.
Thank you so much for your work, Iain! :)
A+ -R
I was thinking anyway going back to debian (or a rolling system
like aptosid). Mint was just a more digestible version of ubuntu
(yuck) which again was just a cheap way to escape debians
stubborn anti-non-free-drivers.
With open source graphic drivers now in a useable state (I don't
care abou
On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 15:43:26 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76
--- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw
2013-09-03 15:43:14 UTC ---
also, gcc-4.6 is rather old, I'd suggest switching over to
gcc-4.7/4.8.
(on Linux Mint 15, up-to-date)
$ dmd
DMD32
Hi
struct Entry {...}
Entry[] table;
int main(string[] args)
{
...
table.length++;
...
}
GDC -> Error: table.length is not an lvalue
Remark: The same code compiles (and works) with DMD.
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks - R
13 matches
Mail list logo
