On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 06:09:56 UTC, RTM wrote:
On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 23:19:35 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
That is, you can do OOP without classes
How so? Every OOP definition includes classes (encapsulation +
inheritance).
I didn't say you should do it, just that you can
On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 08:20:21 UTC, ProtectAndHide wrote:
But there is always 'an ugly way' to do it too:
http://www.cs.rit.edu/~ats/books/ooc.pdf
Yep, but it’s not OOP per se, just a form of lowering. First CPP
implementation was a cross-compiled one.
On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 06:38:46 UTC, Daren Scot Wilson
wrote:
So, which package do I use for TOML?
I find these three:
* toml-foolery (Andrej Petrović)
* toml-d, or toml.d (oglu on github) at ver 0.3.0
* toml, (dlang community on github) at ver 2.0.1
I'm guessing from version numbers t
On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 06:38:46 UTC, Daren Scot Wilson
wrote:
I just realized - it's been ages since I've dealt with config
files, beyond editing them as an end user. I work on existing
software where someone else made the choiced and wrote the
code, or it's a small specialized project n
On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 15:37:56 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
wrote:
Why not XML? :) It has comments, you can use backslashes too.
no kidding, xml is an underrated format.
On 1/29/23 22:09, RTM wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 23:19:35 UTC, ProtectAndHide wrote:
>
>> That is, you can do OOP without classes
>
> How so?
OOP is about putting objects (data) and behavior (functions) together.
> Every OOP definition includes classes
OOP is possible in C, which
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 03:59:52PM +, Adam D Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 15:37:56 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> > Why not XML? :) It has comments, you can use backslashes too.
>
> no kidding, xml is an underrated format.
XML is evil.
Let me qualify
On Friday, 20 January 2023 at 11:28:23 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
```
final abstract class Algo {
void drawLine(Canvas c, Pos from, Pos to) { .. };
}
```
This solution seems like a bit of a hack, which is why I don't
like it.
Interesting solution if you put `static:` in there.
Alte
Use a struct and put `static:` after the opening brace. That's
what GC is in core.memory.
Using a `struct` for a purely static type would still allow the
user to create instances of that `struct`. To bypass that, you'd
have to disable the default constructor -- that then becomes
ugly, hackish
On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 21:50:03 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
Use a struct and put `static:` after the opening brace. That's
what GC is in core.memory.
Using a `struct` for a purely static type would still allow the
user to create instances of that `struct`. To bypass that,
you'd have t
Why do you want a type?
I want a type because it gives clear context as to what family
the method(s) belongs to, and helps make the code more idiomatic
and easy to understand.
Greetings,
for an array byte[3][3] myArr, I can code myArr[0] = 5 and have:
5,5,5
0,0,0
0,0,0
Can I perform a similar assignment to the column? This,
myArr[][0] = 5, doesn't work.
Thanks!
On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 17:54:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
XML is evil.
Agreed!
I'm going with TOML, community package. It's working, so far.
13 matches
Mail list logo
