• Walter (1/1) Aug 06 2005 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
• zwang (8/12) Aug 06 2005 New std.format does not handle bit arrays properly.
• zwang (3/7) Aug 06 2005 The invalid-lvalue-crashes-dmd bug is also fixed.
• David L. Davis (61/62) Aug 07 2005 Walter, thanks for adding the string literal indicators, though I though...
• Jarrett Billingsley (7/16) Aug 07 2005 I'm also a little surprised that they're postfixes instead of prefixes,
• Uwe Salomon (4/9) Aug 07 2005 How to denote a WYSIWYG UTF-16 string, then? rw"This way???" That makes ...
• Ben Hinkle (6/22) Aug 07 2005 Postfix makes it easier to parse since you don't have to look for cr", r...
• Walter (7/11) Aug 08 2005 be

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

zwang <nehzgnaw gmail.com> writes:

Walter wrote:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 
 

New std.format does not handle bit arrays properly.
Test case:

bit[] ba;
ba ~= false;
ba ~= true;
writef("%s\n", ba); //outputs "[false,false]"
writef("[%s,%s]", ba[0], ba[1]); //outputs "[false,true]"

zwang <nehzgnaw gmail.com> writes:

Walter wrote:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 
 

The invalid-lvalue-crashes-dmd bug is also fixed.
Maybe that should also be written in the changelog?

David L. Davis <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:

In article <dd458u$2n3u$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Walter, thanks for adding the string literal indicators, though I thought they
would've have been prefixes instead of postfixes, because of the many posts on
the subject back in the days when Jill and others (myself included) requested
something like this. But hey, it works, and I'm not about to "kick a gift horse
in the mouth!" :)

In my small test below it appears that the 'char' literals are missing this new
feature, will you be adding this to them as well?

Thanks for your reply in advance.








































Output:
----------
C:\dmd>dmd strtest2.d
C:\dmd\bin\..\..\dm\bin\link.exe strtest2,,,user32+kernel32/noi;

C:\dmd>strtest2
Literal "ABC"c is a UTF8  string
Literal "ABC"w is a UTF16 string
Literal "ABC"d is a UTF32 string

C:\dmd>

David L.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

MKoD: http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"David L. Davis" <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:dd515n$97m$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter, thanks for adding the string literal indicators, though I thought 
 they
 would've have been prefixes instead of postfixes, because of the many 
 posts on
 the subject back in the days when Jill and others (myself included) 
 requested
 something like this. But hey, it works, and I'm not about to "kick a gift 
 horse
 in the mouth!" :)

I'm also a little surprised that they're postfixes instead of prefixes, 
since D already has the r and x prefixes.  c, w, and d as prefixes would be 
a little more consistent, and would maybe even make more sense to those 
coming from C++ that has the L prefix.

I like them, though. 

"Uwe Salomon" <post uwesalomon.de> writes:

 I'm also a little surprised that they're postfixes instead of prefixes,
 since D already has the r and x prefixes.  c, w, and d as prefixes would  
 be
 a little more consistent, and would maybe even make more sense to those
 coming from C++ that has the L prefix.

How to denote a WYSIWYG UTF-16 string, then? rw"This way???" That makes no  
sense, eh? And the number modifiers are postfixes, too (234u, 23.54l etc.).

Ciao
uwe

"Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:dd5gpa$kt2$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "David L. Davis" <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:dd515n$97m$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter, thanks for adding the string literal indicators, though I thought 
 they
 would've have been prefixes instead of postfixes, because of the many 
 posts on
 the subject back in the days when Jill and others (myself included) 
 requested
 something like this. But hey, it works, and I'm not about to "kick a gift 
 horse
 in the mouth!" :)

 I'm also a little surprised that they're postfixes instead of prefixes, 
 since D already has the r and x prefixes.  c, w, and d as prefixes would 
 be a little more consistent, and would maybe even make more sense to those 
 coming from C++ that has the L prefix.

 I like them, though.

Postfix makes it easier to parse since you don't have to look for cr", rc" 
permutations. The r/x are mutually exclusive and the c/w/d are mutually 
exclusive so it works out. Hopefully we won't need any more flags on string 
literals or else we'll have to get really creative. 

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd5gpa$kt2$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm also a little surprised that they're postfixes instead of prefixes,
 since D already has the r and x prefixes.  c, w, and d as prefixes would

be
 a little more consistent, and would maybe even make more sense to those
 coming from C++ that has the L prefix.

Postfixes because:
1) consistent with numeric postfixes l, u, f, i, to specify type.
2) the string prefixes don't specify type, they specify in what format the
string will be