www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - enum

reply "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> writes:
It doesn't seem that I can access enum members without qualifying them.

enum colors { red=0, green=1, blue=2 };

int whichcolor = red; // error unknown identifier
int whichcolor = colors.red; // ok

This is causing grief when porting direct3d apps which expect their enum
members to be globally accessible.  I'd change them to const int etc but
they really are an enum and I'd lose typechecking capability. I suppose I
could write it like so:

typedef uint D3DRENDERSTATETYPE;
const D3DRENDERSTATETYPE D3DRS_ALPHABLENDENABLE = 196;
//etc

But I'd rather that enum just worked as expected.

Sean
Jun 08 2002
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
You won't need to qualify them if you make them anonymous enums, like:
    enum { red, green, blue }

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:adtnqu$16j2$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 It doesn't seem that I can access enum members without qualifying them.

 enum colors { red=0, green=1, blue=2 };

 int whichcolor = red; // error unknown identifier
 int whichcolor = colors.red; // ok

 This is causing grief when porting direct3d apps which expect their enum
 members to be globally accessible.  I'd change them to const int etc but
 they really are an enum and I'd lose typechecking capability. I suppose I
 could write it like so:

 typedef uint D3DRENDERSTATETYPE;
 const D3DRENDERSTATETYPE D3DRS_ALPHABLENDENABLE = 196;
 //etc

 But I'd rather that enum just worked as expected.

 Sean
Jun 08 2002
parent reply "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> writes:
Yuch!

Surely it is better to enforce the qualification. Maintenance costs far
exceed original authoring, so who cares about a little effort now?

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:adtsm9$1b4s$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 You won't need to qualify them if you make them anonymous enums, like:
     enum { red, green, blue }

 "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
 news:adtnqu$16j2$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 It doesn't seem that I can access enum members without qualifying them.

 enum colors { red=0, green=1, blue=2 };

 int whichcolor = red; // error unknown identifier
 int whichcolor = colors.red; // ok

 This is causing grief when porting direct3d apps which expect their enum
 members to be globally accessible.  I'd change them to const int etc but
 they really are an enum and I'd lose typechecking capability. I suppose




I

 could write it like so:

 typedef uint D3DRENDERSTATETYPE;
 const D3DRENDERSTATETYPE D3DRS_ALPHABLENDENABLE = 196;
 file://etc

 But I'd rather that enum just worked as expected.

 Sean
Jun 08 2002
next sibling parent reply "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> writes:
We don't want ADA-style mandates, do we?  If there's a conflict, sure, but
if no conflict why inflict such pain on the programmer?

If you strictly compartmentalize everything  and enforce scope
qualifications for everything, D would end up being a quite wordy language.

Sean

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> wrote in message
news:adu2pt$1gtv$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 Yuch!

 Surely it is better to enforce the qualification. Maintenance costs far
 exceed original authoring, so who cares about a little effort now?

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:adtsm9$1b4s$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 You won't need to qualify them if you make them anonymous enums, like:
     enum { red, green, blue }

 "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
 news:adtnqu$16j2$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 It doesn't seem that I can access enum members without qualifying






them.

 enum colors { red=0, green=1, blue=2 };

 int whichcolor = red; // error unknown identifier
 int whichcolor = colors.red; // ok

 This is causing grief when porting direct3d apps which expect their






enum

 members to be globally accessible.  I'd change them to const int etc






but

 they really are an enum and I'd lose typechecking capability. I






suppose

 I

 could write it like so:

 typedef uint D3DRENDERSTATETYPE;
 const D3DRENDERSTATETYPE D3DRS_ALPHABLENDENABLE = 196;
 file://etc

 But I'd rather that enum just worked as expected.

 Sean
Jun 08 2002
parent reply "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> writes:
Sure. I'm not advocating that we end up with Java's ridiculously low
functionality : SLOCs ratio, but there are certain issues that seem pretty
cut and dried (I'm just putting up my umbrella in anticipation of you all
raining down scorn upon me) such as:

1. Mandatory braces. Almost all experienced programmers end up putting them
in everywhere, so let's just admit that the odd bit of typing now will save
masses of effort later. IDE macros can easily be made to do this for us
anyway, for those who dislike key-presses.
2. Conditional expressions must be boolean. Thus one must compare integrals
against constant

    int    i;

    ...

    if(i != 0)

and pointers (sorry, I mean references, spot the C++ programmer!) must
compare to null

    SomeObject    o

    ...

    if(o != null)

This is not going to affect generated code in anyway, but is (i) more
immediately accessible to the reviewer/maintainer (not to mention the
original author some months later), and (ii) less error-prone

I believe there is a precedent for this kind of rigour (unless memory
misserves) in Walter's requiring all enum members to be mentioned in switch
statements (of enums) as a guard against addition to the enum without
addition to the switch case list. (Can someone refresh my memory as to the
exact nature of this post?)



"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:adu3ar$1he8$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 We don't want ADA-style mandates, do we?  If there's a conflict, sure, but
 if no conflict why inflict such pain on the programmer?

 If you strictly compartmentalize everything  and enforce scope
 qualifications for everything, D would end up being a quite wordy


language.

 Sean

 "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> wrote in message
 news:adu2pt$1gtv$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 Yuch!

 Surely it is better to enforce the qualification. Maintenance costs far
 exceed original authoring, so who cares about a little effort now?

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:adtsm9$1b4s$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 You won't need to qualify them if you make them anonymous enums, like:
     enum { red, green, blue }

 "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
 news:adtnqu$16j2$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 It doesn't seem that I can access enum members without qualifying






 them.

 enum colors { red=0, green=1, blue=2 };

 int whichcolor = red; // error unknown identifier
 int whichcolor = colors.red; // ok

 This is causing grief when porting direct3d apps which expect their






 enum

 members to be globally accessible.  I'd change them to const int etc






 but

 they really are an enum and I'd lose typechecking capability. I






 suppose

 I

 could write it like so:

 typedef uint D3DRENDERSTATETYPE;
 const D3DRENDERSTATETYPE D3DRS_ALPHABLENDENABLE = 196;
 file://etc

 But I'd rather that enum just worked as expected.

 Sean
Jun 08 2002
parent reply "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:
"Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> wrote in message
news:adu4u3$1j4h$1 digitaldaemon.com...


 1. Mandatory braces. Almost all experienced programmers end up putting


them

 in everywhere, so let's just admit that the odd bit of typing now will


save

 masses of effort later. IDE macros can easily be made to do this for us
 anyway, for those who dislike key-presses.


For more flame on this topic, you might want to post this into the thread
started earlier for the same reason. =)


 2. Conditional expressions must be boolean. Thus one must compare


integrals

 against constant

 This is not going to affect generated code in anyway, but is (i) more
 immediately accessible to the reviewer/maintainer (not to mention the
 original author some months later), and (ii) less error-prone


You know, I myself find this feature quite convenient, both when I
write programs and when I read others code. Clearly, !a is the same
as (a != 0).

One thing that caused problem was when you wrote "if (a = 1)", but
it is forbidden in D now.
Jun 10 2002
parent reply "Matthew Wilson" <dm synesis-group.com> writes:
And a very good thing too. Now if we can wean all the terse programmers away
from all their other write-once unmaintain-ever-more practises, we should
really be cooking

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> wrote in message
news:ae34ps$leg$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> wrote in message
 news:adu4u3$1j4h$1 digitaldaemon.com...


 1. Mandatory braces. Almost all experienced programmers end up putting


 them

 in everywhere, so let's just admit that the odd bit of typing now will


 save

 masses of effort later. IDE macros can easily be made to do this for us
 anyway, for those who dislike key-presses.


 For more flame on this topic, you might want to post this into the thread
 started earlier for the same reason. =)


 2. Conditional expressions must be boolean. Thus one must compare


 integrals

 against constant

 This is not going to affect generated code in anyway, but is (i) more
 immediately accessible to the reviewer/maintainer (not to mention the
 original author some months later), and (ii) less error-prone


 You know, I myself find this feature quite convenient, both when I
 write programs and when I read others code. Clearly, !a is the same
 as (a != 0).

 One thing that caused problem was when you wrote "if (a = 1)", but
 it is forbidden in D now.
Jun 10 2002
parent reply "Robert W. Cunningham" <rcunning acm.org> writes:
Matthew Wilson wrote:


 And a very good thing too. Now if we can wean all the terse programmers away
 from all their other write-once unmaintain-ever-more practises, we should
 really be cooking


Reminds me of my own torrid programming past.  As a deeply-embedded C
programmer for 20 years now, one who was brought up on assembler, I still have
this craven need to write monstrously complex functions in two or three lines
of impenetrable obfuscated C.  The goal is to do the most with the fewest
keystrokes, yet make the fastest possible code.

My peers hated it.  My bosses hated it.  When I became independent, my clients
hated it.  But you see, sometimes I just had to do it.  I couldn't resist.  I
want to push C down to the level of finely honed assembly macros (which can get
positively Forth-like if left to their own devices).  And if the rest of the
world couldn't understand it, well, it just proved they didn't really know C
all that well.  Right?

To make everyone shut up, I started putting the "correct" code in there as
well, then I'd use the preprocessor to switch between the two instances.  I
could show the two were functionally equivalent (and on some occasions they
even produced the same code).

Well, compilers got smarter, the style battles got harder to fight, and
programmers got dumber (in a good way ;^).  Simple straightforward code is what
everyone wanted, and I finally caved.  Now I use braces and semicolons and
parentheses everywhere they can legally go.  I no longer pay attention to
operator precedence:  Parens make that a non-issue in all but a very few
cases.  I no longer ever have "if" and "else" on the same line, and always have
full brace sets between them.

I no longer define structs and enums in-place, even when they are throw-aways.
I use layer upon layer of typedefs to avoid the magic of tangled Gordian C type
declarations.  My include files are huge and comprehensive.  I use variable
names with more than one letter, sometimes they may even be found in
dictionaries (of some language).  Then I started using variable naming
conventions, so all my pointers start with p, and member data with m, and so on
to the land of the noted Hungarian.

Well, I did stop at that last one.  Nipped it in the bud.  I'm not that far
gone.  Not quite yet.

But then it got worse:  I started using "style guides" and "coding standards".
Then I even started writing the damned things!  Then my code started to go
through the pretty-printer/reformatter without even a single change.  (BTW,
"astyle" rocks.)  I even started thinking the blasted tools "rocked".  I
started using lint and "-Wall", and my compiles became warning-free.  Pffft.
Warnings are feared only by those who don't know what they mean.

I had to enter so many more characters in my code that I actually had to stop
looking at the keyboard while I typed.  My comment-to-code ratio went from 1:10
to 2:1, and I even started using documentation generators (which would always
gag on my old code).  I had to go to ever-higher display resolutions on
ever-larger displays to get enough code visible in a single window to hold a
complete thought.

My functions had only a single entry and exit and were goto-free, with each
loop fully closed, each if else'd.

Yes, I truly caved.

But I still sneak in the occasional line or two of raw distilled power-code.  I
am a man, dammit!  And I can still code my way out of a paper bag.  But I do it
with about 20 lines of surrounding comments. (It feels like wrapping a diamond
in burlap.)

My "safe" coding has had its cost:  I no longer solve those PC-Lint puzzles in
a single glance.  Sometimes it takes two glances, taking a pause between them
to adjust the reading glasses on my nose.  I no longer "see" code in the empty
editor window, like I did way back when, when the hardest problem was making my
eyes keep up with my fingers on the keyboard.  Now I actually have to do
designs.  And do eye exercises.

But at least my typing has improved.  It allows me to write long, wandering
posts to newsgroups in the blink of an eye.

I like D simply because it removes so much of the temptation to delve into
obfuscation.  The only problem is that I have to fire up a Windows system to
use it.

Did I mention I'm really good on the keyboard?  I hate mice.  I hate windowing
systems that don't have keystrokes for doing everything.  I hate MS Windows.  I
hate that D runs only under Windows.  I hate that I have to take down my
ultra-stable SMP Linux system, and reboot into Win98 (and give up a processor)
to run D.

But it is worth it, once in a while, if only so I can avoid the seductive siren
call of minimalist C.

Somebody shoot me.


-BobC

PS:  D rocks!
Jun 10 2002
next sibling parent "Matthew Wilson" <dm synesis-group.com> writes:
Bob

If you were an attractive lady, and I not unattached to mine, I think I'd
have to marry you!

Almost completely agree with everything you say, particularly salient is
your description of the maturation process from hero-geek to software
engineer. I'm always bemused when people have not made that transition after
many years in the game. Surely it's either that they've been working on the
same product/project, for the same company, using the same technology. Like
you, once reviewing and teaching became a large part of what I do, the use
of all those neat tricks (that still appeal, as you say) becomes untenable.
How can one say "you must do x" when one is still doing "!x". Down with
hypocrisy, down with short-term solutions (minimal coding now for maximum
maintenance in the future). One of the _few_ good things about Java is that
the compiler enforces a few good things (missing / superfluous exception
catches, boolean conditional statements, etc.) on the practise of its
programmers.

On thge subject of Hungarianism, always making conditional expressions
boolean aids with reducing the amount of Hungarian. In addition, by forcing
pointers/references to compare to null (rather than 0) also assists. Pretty
much only use p and cch/cb (differentiation between count of characters and
count of bytes is very important in Ansi/Unicode C/C++) these days.

Matthew

P.S. Agree D rocks, but there's a lot more stuff needed until it blasts the

these languages, rather as an evolution of C++, but that's exactly what I
see as its most important (from a political point of view) target).

"Robert W. Cunningham" <rcunning acm.org> wrote in message
news:3D056A53.CAC0C830 acm.org...

 Matthew Wilson wrote:


 And a very good thing too. Now if we can wean all the terse programmers




away

 from all their other write-once unmaintain-ever-more practises, we




should

 really be cooking


 Reminds me of my own torrid programming past.  As a deeply-embedded C
 programmer for 20 years now, one who was brought up on assembler, I still


have

 this craven need to write monstrously complex functions in two or three


lines

 of impenetrable obfuscated C.  The goal is to do the most with the fewest
 keystrokes, yet make the fastest possible code.

 My peers hated it.  My bosses hated it.  When I became independent, my


clients

 hated it.  But you see, sometimes I just had to do it.  I couldn't resist.


I

 want to push C down to the level of finely honed assembly macros (which


can get

 positively Forth-like if left to their own devices).  And if the rest of


the

 world couldn't understand it, well, it just proved they didn't really know


C

 all that well.  Right?

 To make everyone shut up, I started putting the "correct" code in there as
 well, then I'd use the preprocessor to switch between the two instances.


I

 could show the two were functionally equivalent (and on some occasions


they

 even produced the same code).

 Well, compilers got smarter, the style battles got harder to fight, and
 programmers got dumber (in a good way ;^).  Simple straightforward code is


what

 everyone wanted, and I finally caved.  Now I use braces and semicolons and
 parentheses everywhere they can legally go.  I no longer pay attention to
 operator precedence:  Parens make that a non-issue in all but a very few
 cases.  I no longer ever have "if" and "else" on the same line, and always


have

 full brace sets between them.

 I no longer define structs and enums in-place, even when they are


throw-aways.

 I use layer upon layer of typedefs to avoid the magic of tangled Gordian C


type

 declarations.  My include files are huge and comprehensive.  I use


variable

 names with more than one letter, sometimes they may even be found in
 dictionaries (of some language).  Then I started using variable naming
 conventions, so all my pointers start with p, and member data with m, and


so on

 to the land of the noted Hungarian.

 Well, I did stop at that last one.  Nipped it in the bud.  I'm not that


far

 gone.  Not quite yet.

 But then it got worse:  I started using "style guides" and "coding


standards".

 Then I even started writing the damned things!  Then my code started to go
 through the pretty-printer/reformatter without even a single change.


(BTW,

 "astyle" rocks.)  I even started thinking the blasted tools "rocked".  I
 started using lint and "-Wall", and my compiles became warning-free.


Pffft.

 Warnings are feared only by those who don't know what they mean.

 I had to enter so many more characters in my code that I actually had to


stop

 looking at the keyboard while I typed.  My comment-to-code ratio went from


1:10

 to 2:1, and I even started using documentation generators (which would


always

 gag on my old code).  I had to go to ever-higher display resolutions on
 ever-larger displays to get enough code visible in a single window to hold


a

 complete thought.

 My functions had only a single entry and exit and were goto-free, with


each

 loop fully closed, each if else'd.

 Yes, I truly caved.

 But I still sneak in the occasional line or two of raw distilled


power-code.  I

 am a man, dammit!  And I can still code my way out of a paper bag.  But I


do it

 with about 20 lines of surrounding comments. (It feels like wrapping a


diamond

 in burlap.)

 My "safe" coding has had its cost:  I no longer solve those PC-Lint


puzzles in

 a single glance.  Sometimes it takes two glances, taking a pause between


them

 to adjust the reading glasses on my nose.  I no longer "see" code in the


empty

 editor window, like I did way back when, when the hardest problem was


making my

 eyes keep up with my fingers on the keyboard.  Now I actually have to do
 designs.  And do eye exercises.

 But at least my typing has improved.  It allows me to write long,


wandering

 posts to newsgroups in the blink of an eye.

 I like D simply because it removes so much of the temptation to delve into
 obfuscation.  The only problem is that I have to fire up a Windows system


to

 use it.

 Did I mention I'm really good on the keyboard?  I hate mice.  I hate


windowing

 systems that don't have keystrokes for doing everything.  I hate MS


Windows.  I

 hate that D runs only under Windows.  I hate that I have to take down my
 ultra-stable SMP Linux system, and reboot into Win98 (and give up a


processor)

 to run D.

 But it is worth it, once in a while, if only so I can avoid the seductive


siren

 call of minimalist C.

 Somebody shoot me.


 -BobC

 PS:  D rocks!
Jun 10 2002
prev sibling next sibling parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
This is a great post! Thanks. -Walter
Jun 10 2002
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Roberto Mariottini" <rmariottini lycosmail.com> writes:
"Robert W. Cunningham" <rcunning acm.org> wrote in message
news:3D056A53.CAC0C830 acm.org...

 Reminds me of my own torrid programming past.  As a deeply-embedded C
 programmer for 20 years now, one who was brought up on assembler, I still


have

 this craven need to write monstrously complex functions in two or three


lines

 of impenetrable obfuscated C.  The goal is to do the most with the fewest
 keystrokes, yet make the fastest possible code.

 [... big snip of an highly worth-to-read piece of text ...]


I don't have enough skill in english to express how much I agree with you.
I have only 14 years of programming and I don't make any embedded
work, but my story is very similar to yours.

I think your article should be published on the web for everyone to read.

Ciao
Jun 11 2002
parent reply "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> writes:
Roberto

That's an excellent idea.

Bob, do you fancy having that post as an opinion piece in the first issue of
"The D Journal"?

"Roberto Mariottini" <rmariottini lycosmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae4mpp$27vo$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Robert W. Cunningham" <rcunning acm.org> wrote in message
 news:3D056A53.CAC0C830 acm.org...

 Reminds me of my own torrid programming past.  As a deeply-embedded C
 programmer for 20 years now, one who was brought up on assembler, I




still

 have

 this craven need to write monstrously complex functions in two or three


 lines

 of impenetrable obfuscated C.  The goal is to do the most with the




fewest

 keystrokes, yet make the fastest possible code.

 [... big snip of an highly worth-to-read piece of text ...]


 I don't have enough skill in english to express how much I agree with you.
 I have only 14 years of programming and I don't make any embedded
 work, but my story is very similar to yours.

 I think your article should be published on the web for everyone to read.

 Ciao
Jun 11 2002
parent reply "Robert W. Cunningham" <rcunning acm.org> writes:
<blush!>

Once in a while the muse strikes.  But like the lightning, I can't control it.
I really do wish I had paid attention during the two writing classes I had to
endure to get my degree.  They were the only English classes I had to take in
five years of higher education.

Sure, use the post however you like!  But don't ask me to edit it:  I'll kill
it dead, since my normal writing style is third-person-distant.

But please keep the headers with it:  Context is important, and I hope it will
encourage people to read the other fantastic threads that keep appearing in
this newsgroup.

As several others have noted before, this is one hell of a special group.  And
I'm delighted that it has kept its flavor and quality as the D crowd has
grown.  I doubt I'd have ever thought to toss my random thoughts into any other
forum.  That is, I probably wouldn't even have thought the thoughts I wrote.

This place seems to make people think deeper and write better.  Many members of
this forum entered with sirens howling, strobes flashing, and guns blazing.
Then, within a week or a month, each would calm down, listen, then start to
contribute in a big way.  Tolerance, understanding and persistence are rare
things to be expressed so well, and so often.

This place rocks.


-BobC

PS: What if we got the Israelis and Palestinians to sit down and learn D?  We'd
probably see the first peace treaty that compiled without error, ran without
crashing, and was understood by everyone to be the correct solution to the
problem.  ;^)


Matthew Wilson wrote:


 Roberto

 That's an excellent idea.

 Bob, do you fancy having that post as an opinion piece in the first issue of
 "The D Journal"?

 "Roberto Mariottini" <rmariottini lycosmail.com> wrote in message
 news:ae4mpp$27vo$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Robert W. Cunningham" <rcunning acm.org> wrote in message
 news:3D056A53.CAC0C830 acm.org...

 Reminds me of my own torrid programming past.  As a deeply-embedded C
 programmer for 20 years now, one who was brought up on assembler, I




 still

 have

 this craven need to write monstrously complex functions in two or three


 lines

 of impenetrable obfuscated C.  The goal is to do the most with the




 fewest

 keystrokes, yet make the fastest possible code.

 [... big snip of an highly worth-to-read piece of text ...]


 I don't have enough skill in english to express how much I agree with you.
 I have only 14 years of programming and I don't make any embedded
 work, but my story is very similar to yours.

 I think your article should be published on the web for everyone to read.

 Ciao
Jun 11 2002
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Robert W. Cunningham" <rcunning acm.org> wrote in message
news:3D06B965.445249E6 acm.org...

 As several others have noted before, this is one hell of a special group.


And

 I'm delighted that it has kept its flavor and quality as the D crowd has
 grown.  I doubt I'd have ever thought to toss my random thoughts into any


other

 forum.  That is, I probably wouldn't even have thought the thoughts I


wrote.

When this group was first set up, I thought it would need moderation (look
at com.lang.* newsgroups for comparison). I've been delightfully pleased
that it needs none at all.

It's like my experience in the compiler business. I've never needed to deal
with the problems that other mail order businesses seem to regularly
experience. My conclusion is that the products I make simply attract a much
higher quality of customer than the competitors do <g>.
Jun 13 2002
parent reply "OddesE" <OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com> writes:
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:aeb9ef$1c72$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Robert W. Cunningham" <rcunning acm.org> wrote in message
 news:3D06B965.445249E6 acm.org...

 As several others have noted before, this is one hell of a special




group.

 And

 I'm delighted that it has kept its flavor and quality as the D crowd has
 grown.  I doubt I'd have ever thought to toss my random thoughts into




any

 other

 forum.  That is, I probably wouldn't even have thought the thoughts I


 wrote.

 When this group was first set up, I thought it would need moderation (look
 at com.lang.* newsgroups for comparison). I've been delightfully pleased
 that it needs none at all.


But I do think an important part of this is that you
are on your own server? I have not yet seen a single
spamvertisement here, a great relief!

Also, on this group there aren't so many people that
flame you to death if you post off topic, if you
didn't read the f*cking manual or if you simply
disagree with them. I love it here and it is one of
the only groups I ever go recently. Posting on or
even reading comp.lang.c++ just doesn't seem worth
it any more... :(



 It's like my experience in the compiler business. I've never needed to


deal

 with the problems that other mail order businesses seem to regularly
 experience. My conclusion is that the products I make simply attract a


much

 higher quality of customer than the competitors do <g>.


LOL! :)
We can all safely agree with that!

--
Stijn
OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com
http://OddesE.cjb.net
_________________________________________________
Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail
Jun 26 2002
parent "Matthew Wilson" <matthew thedjournal.com> writes:
Agreed. This place is a positive relief from the rough and tumble of other
groups, populated by people who seem to care more about impressing others
than being helpful/polite. Maybe this is because, in a positive sense, we
are all ignorant: D is new.

:)

"OddesE" <OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:afd8d6$2cbd$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:aeb9ef$1c72$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Robert W. Cunningham" <rcunning acm.org> wrote in message
 news:3D06B965.445249E6 acm.org...

 As several others have noted before, this is one hell of a special




 group.

 And

 I'm delighted that it has kept its flavor and quality as the D crowd






has

 grown.  I doubt I'd have ever thought to toss my random thoughts into




 any

 other

 forum.  That is, I probably wouldn't even have thought the thoughts I


 wrote.

 When this group was first set up, I thought it would need moderation




(look

 at com.lang.* newsgroups for comparison). I've been delightfully pleased
 that it needs none at all.


 But I do think an important part of this is that you
 are on your own server? I have not yet seen a single
 spamvertisement here, a great relief!

 Also, on this group there aren't so many people that
 flame you to death if you post off topic, if you
 didn't read the f*cking manual or if you simply
 disagree with them. I love it here and it is one of
 the only groups I ever go recently. Posting on or
 even reading comp.lang.c++ just doesn't seem worth
 it any more... :(



 It's like my experience in the compiler business. I've never needed to


 deal

 with the problems that other mail order businesses seem to regularly
 experience. My conclusion is that the products I make simply attract a


 much

 higher quality of customer than the competitors do <g>.


 LOL! :)
 We can all safely agree with that!

 --
 Stijn
 OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com
 http://OddesE.cjb.net
 _________________________________________________
 Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail
Jun 26 2002
prev sibling parent "OddesE" <OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com> writes:
"Robert W. Cunningham" <rcunning acm.org> wrote in message
news:3D056A53.CAC0C830 acm.org...

 Matthew Wilson wrote:


 And a very good thing too. Now if we can wean all the terse programmers




away

 from all their other write-once unmaintain-ever-more practises, we




should

 really be cooking


 Reminds me of my own torrid programming past.  As a deeply-embedded C
 programmer for 20 years now, one who was brought up on assembler, I still


have

 this craven need to write monstrously complex functions in two or three


lines

 of impenetrable obfuscated C.  The goal is to do the most with the fewest
 keystrokes, yet make the fastest possible code.

 My peers hated it.  My bosses hated it.  When I became independent, my


clients

 hated it.  But you see, sometimes I just had to do it.  I couldn't resist.


I

 want to push C down to the level of finely honed assembly macros (which


can get

 positively Forth-like if left to their own devices).  And if the rest of


the

 world couldn't understand it, well, it just proved they didn't really know


C

 all that well.  Right?

 To make everyone shut up, I started putting the "correct" code in there as
 well, then I'd use the preprocessor to switch between the two instances.


I

 could show the two were functionally equivalent (and on some occasions


they

 even produced the same code).

 Well, compilers got smarter, the style battles got harder to fight, and
 programmers got dumber (in a good way ;^).  Simple straightforward code is


what

 everyone wanted, and I finally caved.  Now I use braces and semicolons and
 parentheses everywhere they can legally go.  I no longer pay attention to
 operator precedence:  Parens make that a non-issue in all but a very few
 cases.  I no longer ever have "if" and "else" on the same line, and always


have

 full brace sets between them.

 I no longer define structs and enums in-place, even when they are


throw-aways.

 I use layer upon layer of typedefs to avoid the magic of tangled Gordian C


type

 declarations.  My include files are huge and comprehensive.  I use


variable

 names with more than one letter, sometimes they may even be found in
 dictionaries (of some language).  Then I started using variable naming
 conventions, so all my pointers start with p, and member data with m, and


so on

 to the land of the noted Hungarian.

 Well, I did stop at that last one.  Nipped it in the bud.  I'm not that


far

 gone.  Not quite yet.

 But then it got worse:  I started using "style guides" and "coding


standards".

 Then I even started writing the damned things!  Then my code started to go
 through the pretty-printer/reformatter without even a single change.


(BTW,

 "astyle" rocks.)  I even started thinking the blasted tools "rocked".  I
 started using lint and "-Wall", and my compiles became warning-free.


Pffft.

 Warnings are feared only by those who don't know what they mean.

 I had to enter so many more characters in my code that I actually had to


stop

 looking at the keyboard while I typed.  My comment-to-code ratio went from


1:10

 to 2:1, and I even started using documentation generators (which would


always

 gag on my old code).  I had to go to ever-higher display resolutions on
 ever-larger displays to get enough code visible in a single window to hold


a

 complete thought.

 My functions had only a single entry and exit and were goto-free, with


each

 loop fully closed, each if else'd.

 Yes, I truly caved.

 But I still sneak in the occasional line or two of raw distilled


power-code.  I

 am a man, dammit!  And I can still code my way out of a paper bag.  But I


do it

 with about 20 lines of surrounding comments. (It feels like wrapping a


diamond

 in burlap.)

 My "safe" coding has had its cost:  I no longer solve those PC-Lint


puzzles in

 a single glance.  Sometimes it takes two glances, taking a pause between


them

 to adjust the reading glasses on my nose.  I no longer "see" code in the


empty

 editor window, like I did way back when, when the hardest problem was


making my

 eyes keep up with my fingers on the keyboard.  Now I actually have to do
 designs.  And do eye exercises.

 But at least my typing has improved.  It allows me to write long,


wandering

 posts to newsgroups in the blink of an eye.

 I like D simply because it removes so much of the temptation to delve into
 obfuscation.  The only problem is that I have to fire up a Windows system


to

 use it.

 Did I mention I'm really good on the keyboard?  I hate mice.  I hate


windowing

 systems that don't have keystrokes for doing everything.  I hate MS


Windows.  I

 hate that D runs only under Windows.  I hate that I have to take down my
 ultra-stable SMP Linux system, and reboot into Win98 (and give up a


processor)

 to run D.

 But it is worth it, once in a while, if only so I can avoid the seductive


siren

 call of minimalist C.

 Somebody shoot me.


 -BobC

 PS:  D rocks!



LOL!  :)

This is great, and probably should go somewhere
in the D Journal!

--
Stijn
OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com
http://OddesE.cjb.net
_________________________________________________
Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail
Jun 26 2002
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
How would you qualify an unnamed enum <g>?

In any case, I've found anonymous enums to be handy when converting existing
C code over.

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> wrote in message
news:adu2pt$1gtv$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 Yuch!

 Surely it is better to enforce the qualification. Maintenance costs far
 exceed original authoring, so who cares about a little effort now?

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:adtsm9$1b4s$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 You won't need to qualify them if you make them anonymous enums, like:
     enum { red, green, blue }
Jun 08 2002
parent reply "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> writes:
What I want is an anonymous enum with a name, evidently.  ;)

Sean

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:adu3d5$1hfa$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 How would you qualify an unnamed enum <g>?

 In any case, I've found anonymous enums to be handy when converting


existing

 C code over.

 "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> wrote in message
 news:adu2pt$1gtv$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 Yuch!

 Surely it is better to enforce the qualification. Maintenance costs far
 exceed original authoring, so who cares about a little effort now?

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:adtsm9$1b4s$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 You won't need to qualify them if you make them anonymous enums, like:
     enum { red, green, blue }
Jun 08 2002
parent reply "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:
"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:adu3qg$1hsh$1 digitaldaemon.com...


 What I want is an anonymous enum with a name, evidently.  ;)


Just make an alias:

    alias int OLD_C_ENUM;
    enum { ... }

This worked fine for me. =)
Jun 10 2002
parent reply "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> writes:
It just seems kludgy;  It's the behavior I'd want from enums to begin with.
But that may be just because I come from a C++ background where enums do
work like this.

In fact to be perfectly compatible with C++ enum, it'd have to be completely
rewritten:

instead of :

// in C++

enum Colors { red, green, blue };

// in D

typedef uint Colors;
public const Colors red = Colors(0);
public const Colors green = Colors(1);
public const Colors blue = Colors(2);

Now that sucks.

Sean

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> wrote in message
news:ae34ko$l9e$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
 news:adu3qg$1hsh$1 digitaldaemon.com...


 What I want is an anonymous enum with a name, evidently.  ;)


 Just make an alias:

     alias int OLD_C_ENUM;
     enum { ... }

 This worked fine for me. =)
Jun 10 2002
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ae41t3$1i6q$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 It just seems kludgy;  It's the behavior I'd want from enums to begin


with.

 But that may be just because I come from a C++ background where enums do
 work like this.

 In fact to be perfectly compatible with C++ enum, it'd have to be


completely

 rewritten:

 instead of :

 // in C++

 enum Colors { red, green, blue };

 // in D

 typedef uint Colors;
 public const Colors red = Colors(0);
 public const Colors green = Colors(1);
 public const Colors blue = Colors(2);


Not necessary:

typedef uint Colors;
enum : Colors { red, green, blue };

note the colon.
Jun 10 2002
parent reply "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> writes:
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:ae47lc$1p4a$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In fact to be perfectly compatible with C++ enum, it'd have to be




completely rewritten:

 instead of :

 // in C++

 enum Colors { red, green, blue };

 // in D

 typedef uint Colors;
 public const Colors red = Colors(0);
 public const Colors green = Colors(1);
 public const Colors blue = Colors(2);


 Not necessary:

 typedef uint Colors;
 enum : Colors { red, green, blue };

 note the colon.


What does the colon do, again?
Jun 11 2002
parent reply Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:
"Sean L. Palmer" wrote:


 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:ae47lc$1p4a$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In fact to be perfectly compatible with C++ enum, it'd have to be




 completely rewritten:

 instead of :

 // in C++

 enum Colors { red, green, blue };

 // in D

 typedef uint Colors;
 public const Colors red = Colors(0);
 public const Colors green = Colors(1);
 public const Colors blue = Colors(2);


 Not necessary:

 typedef uint Colors;
 enum : Colors { red, green, blue };

 note the colon.


 What does the colon do, again?


It defines the underlying type of the enum, rather than letting the
compiler select it.

--
The Villagers are Online! villagersonline.com

.[ (the fox.(quick,brown)) jumped.over(the dog.lazy) ]
.[ (a version.of(English).(precise.more)) is(possible) ]
?[ you want.to(help(develop(it))) ]
Jun 11 2002
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> wrote in message
news:3D0647B6.C88EE81F deming-os.org...

 "Sean L. Palmer" wrote:

 What does the colon do, again?


 It defines the underlying type of the enum, rather than letting the
 compiler select it.


Yes. If you think about it as being like selecting a "base class", the
syntax makes sense.
Jun 13 2002
parent "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> writes:
Yes, sounds cool.

Sean

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:aeanc7$p3f$3 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> wrote in message
 news:3D0647B6.C88EE81F deming-os.org...

 "Sean L. Palmer" wrote:

 What does the colon do, again?


 It defines the underlying type of the enum, rather than letting the
 compiler select it.


 Yes. If you think about it as being like selecting a "base class", the
 syntax makes sense.
Jun 14 2002