• Benjamin Thaut (10/10) Jul 11 2013 I started a small article series on D specific patterns & idioms on my
• Andrei Alexandrescu (3/13) Jul 12 2013 Well you have a typo in the first title...
• Walter Bright (10/12) Jul 12 2013 The same misspelling occurs repeatedly in the article, so it's not a typ...
• Benjamin Thaut (6/11) Jul 12 2013 I did talk about implict conversions between user defined types. D does
• Tobias Pankrath (2/16) Jul 12 2013 What's about alias this?
• Benjamin Thaut (5/19) Jul 12 2013 Did you even read the article?
• Walter Bright (4/15) Jul 12 2013 Ok - but I think it would be clearer if the statement added "for user de...
• Benjamin Thaut (6/12) Jul 12 2013 For me there is already a "between user defined types" in the following
• Walter Bright (2/15) Jul 12 2013 It is. I was commenting from memory rather than re-reading it. My mistak...
• Ary Borenszweig (6/16) Jul 12 2013 This sentence worries me a bit:
• Benjamin Thaut (11/32) Jul 12 2013 The shown code should work all versions of D 2.0 since 2.053 (I'm using
• Peter Alexander (6/11) Jul 12 2013 D is still in the alpha phase of development, so things are still
• Jesse Phillips (8/10) Jul 12 2013 Why would you release a version if it wasn't different from the
• Jakob Ovrum (4/5) Jul 13 2013 One of the article says that only one AliasThis is allowed per
• Benjamin Thaut (5/10) Jul 13 2013 Thanks for the information, didn't know that. Still I like to only

Benjamin Thaut <code benjamin-thaut.de> writes:

I started a small article series on D specific patterns & idioms on my 
blog. I'm going to add more over time and hope that there are at least 
some in there which are not already known to everyone.

You can find them here: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?cat=17

Currently there are two:

1) D implict conversion idiom: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=90
2) D templated interface idiom: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=94

Feedback is welcome.

Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

On 7/11/13 11:53 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 I started a small article series on D specific patterns & idioms on my
 blog. I'm going to add more over time and hope that there are at least
 some in there which are not already known to everyone.

 You can find them here: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?cat=17

 Currently there are two:

 1) D implict conversion idiom: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=90
 2) D templated interface idiom: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=94

 Feedback is welcome.

 Kind Regards
 Benjamin Thaut

Well you have a typo in the first title...

Andrei

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

I think it's a nice blog and encourage you to do more!

On 7/12/2013 12:34 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 1) D implict conversion idiom: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=90

 Well you have a typo in the first title...

The same misspelling occurs repeatedly in the article, so it's not a typo.

"implicit"

also,

buildin => builtin

"D strives to prevent implict conversion between user defined types at all
costs."

I don't think this is true. Implicit conversions are very useful. What D 
prevents are implicit conversions that can result in data loss, such as integer 
truncation.

Benjamin Thaut <code benjamin-thaut.de> writes:

 "D strives to prevent implict conversion between user defined types at
 all costs."

 I don't think this is true. Implicit conversions are very useful. What D
 prevents are implicit conversions that can result in data loss, such as
 integer truncation.

I did talk about implict conversions between user defined types. D does 
not have implict construction, or implict casting like C++ does. I did 
not talk about builtin types.

-- 
Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut

"Tobias Pankrath" <tobias pankrath.net> writes:

On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 09:42:28 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 "D strives to prevent implict conversion between user defined 
 types at
 all costs."

 I don't think this is true. Implicit conversions are very 
 useful. What D
 prevents are implicit conversions that can result in data 
 loss, such as
 integer truncation.

 I did talk about implict conversions between user defined 
 types. D does not have implict construction, or implict casting 
 like C++ does. I did not talk about builtin types.

What's about alias this?

Benjamin Thaut <code benjamin-thaut.de> writes:

Am 12.07.2013 17:12, schrieb Tobias Pankrath:
 On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 09:42:28 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 "D strives to prevent implict conversion between user defined types at
 all costs."

 I don't think this is true. Implicit conversions are very useful. What D
 prevents are implicit conversions that can result in data loss, such as
 integer truncation.

 I did talk about implict conversions between user defined types. D
 does not have implict construction, or implict casting like C++ does.
 I did not talk about builtin types.

 What's about alias this?

Did you even read the article?

-- 
Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 7/12/2013 2:42 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 "D strives to prevent implict conversion between user defined types at
 all costs."

 I don't think this is true. Implicit conversions are very useful. What D
 prevents are implicit conversions that can result in data loss, such as
 integer truncation.

 I did talk about implict conversions between user defined types. D does not
have
 implict construction, or implict casting like C++ does.

"alias this" is used for implicit casting. BTW, it's implicit. There's an 'i'
there!

 I did not talk about builtin types.

Ok - but I think it would be clearer if the statement added "for user defined 
types".

Benjamin Thaut <code benjamin-thaut.de> writes:

Am 12.07.2013 21:00, schrieb Walter Bright:
 On 7/12/2013 2:42 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 "D strives to prevent implicit conversion between user defined types at
 all costs."


 Ok - but I think it would be clearer if the statement added "for user
 defined types".

For me there is already a "between user defined types" in the following 
sentence:

"D strives to prevent implicit conversions between user defined types at 
all costs."

Is that not clear enough?

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 7/12/2013 12:22 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 Am 12.07.2013 21:00, schrieb Walter Bright:
 On 7/12/2013 2:42 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 "D strives to prevent implicit conversion between user defined types at
 all costs."


 Ok - but I think it would be clearer if the statement added "for user
 defined types".

 For me there is already a "between user defined types" in the following
sentence:

 "D strives to prevent implicit conversions between user defined types at all
 costs."

 Is that not clear enough?

It is. I was commenting from memory rather than re-reading it. My mistake.

Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:

On 7/12/13 3:53 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 I started a small article series on D specific patterns & idioms on my
 blog. I'm going to add more over time and hope that there are at least
 some in there which are not already known to everyone.

 You can find them here: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?cat=17

 Currently there are two:

 1) D implict conversion idiom: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=90
 2) D templated interface idiom: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=94

 Feedback is welcome.

 Kind Regards
 Benjamin Thaut

This sentence worries me a bit:

"The code shown above has been tested with dmd 2.063.2"

It seems like every minor release of D works different than previous 
ones. Is that true? Isn't it enough to say "D2"? Can something be done 
to prevent this?

Benjamin Thaut <code benjamin-thaut.de> writes:

Am 12.07.2013 15:26, schrieb Ary Borenszweig:
 On 7/12/13 3:53 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 I started a small article series on D specific patterns & idioms on my
 blog. I'm going to add more over time and hope that there are at least
 some in there which are not already known to everyone.

 You can find them here: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?cat=17

 Currently there are two:

 1) D implict conversion idiom: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=90
 2) D templated interface idiom: http://3d.benjamin-thaut.de/?p=94

 Feedback is welcome.

 Kind Regards
 Benjamin Thaut

 This sentence worries me a bit:

 "The code shown above has been tested with dmd 2.063.2"

 It seems like every minor release of D works different than previous
 ones. Is that true? Isn't it enough to say "D2"? Can something be done
 to prevent this?

The shown code should work all versions of D 2.0 since 2.053 (I'm using 
it since then). I only mentioned the version of the dmd compiler, 
because I previously had issues with some of my articles where someone 
would say "but that statement is not true, it works with the current 
version of dmd".

Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut

-- 
Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut

"Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 13:26:21 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 This sentence worries me a bit:

 "The code shown above has been tested with dmd 2.063.2"

 It seems like every minor release of D works different than 
 previous ones. Is that true? Isn't it enough to say "D2"? Can 
 something be done to prevent this?

D is still in the alpha phase of development, so things are still 
likely to change and break regularly. There's not much that can 
be done other than what's already being done, i.e. just try to 
implement everything and fix the major bugs as fast as possible. 
There's no silver bullet.

"Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:

This statement kind of worries me:

 It seems like every minor release of D works different than 
 previous ones.

Why would you release a version if it wasn't different from the 
previous?

It would be nice if one could give the oldest known working 
compiler, but there are still changes to old behavior which means 
some code would have more specific compiler versions needed.

Work is being done, but the issue will exist for some time so 
process to make it less painful is being put in place.

"Jakob Ovrum" <jakobovrum gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 06:53:48 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 Feedback is welcome.

One of the article says that only one AliasThis is allowed per 
type, which is only half the truth. Multiple AliasThis are meant 
to be allowed by the language but has not been implemented.

Benjamin Thaut <code benjamin-thaut.de> writes:

Am 13.07.2013 13:10, schrieb Jakob Ovrum:
 On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 06:53:48 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 Feedback is welcome.

 One of the article says that only one AliasThis is allowed per type,
 which is only half the truth. Multiple AliasThis are meant to be allowed
 by the language but has not been implemented.

Thanks for the information, didn't know that. Still I like to only 
advertise things that are already working.

Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut