Re: The D Programming Language

AJ <two@haik.us> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Walter Bright <walter@digitalmars-nospamm.com> writes:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > | > I am very happy when I can implement, or extend, some feature without
| > | > specific compiler support.
| > |
| > | There's no way you're going to get std::string, std::vector or
| > | std::complex to work as well as core support for such with existing C++
| > | core features.
| >
| > So, the question is: Can there be better library implementations, or
| > can the core language be extended to allow better library
| > implementation? (e.g. allow for literal of user-defined types),
| > or do you think that there are *intrinsinc* reasons why they must be
| > core languages? If yes, could you elaborate on those logical,
| > intrinsinc, reasons?
| >
|
| He already has.

Sorry, I was looking for logical, intrinsic, reasons. If he had, I've
missed it. Upon reading you reply, I searched again; I'm afraid I
must have missed it again.

| (Dynamic) Strings and (Dynamic) Arrays are just as
| common and important in the vast majority of programs as Integers.

Dynamic strings and dynamic arrays are important; I'm not sure they are
just as important as integers. But considering, for the sake of the
argument, that they are equality important, it does not necessarily
follow that they must be intrinsic in the language, if the language
provides general effective abstraction tools to define strings and
arrays in library efficiently.

| Integers are an intrinsic part of the language, yet they don't need to.
|
| I see no indication that a language couldn't get away with a single type
| -- bit -- and everything else left to the library. Thus, the same
| argument applies to strings and arrays.

I'm sure you can exhibit a logical, intrinsic, reason without
resorting to proof by analogy -- which is considered by many as fraud.

| To be fair, std::string and std::vector are fairly impressive bits of
| work, considering how they are constrained. But their deficiencies show
| up everywhere.

Are their deficiencies intrinsically linguistic that cannot be
repaired, or are they library design artefacts?

| Can you imagine having to do:
|
| #include <integer>
|
| // Binary for 32, because remember, you don't have int literals.
| typedef std::integer<0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0> int32;

I don't know what you mean by that.
I tried it on my compiler, it choked with:

   al.C:1:19: error: integer: No such file or directory
   al.C:4: error: expected initializer before '<' token
   al.C:6: error: expected ',' or '...' before '&' token
   al.C:6: error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of 'int32' with no type
   al.C: In function 'void displayAnswer(int)':
   al.C:7: error: 'cout' was not declared in this scope
   al.C:7: error: 'answer' was not declared in this scope
   al.C:7: error: 'endl' was not declared in this scope
   al.C: At global scope:
   al.C:10: error: 'int32' does not name a type

| void displayAnswer(const int32& answer) {
| cout << "The answer to the life is: " << answer << endl;
| }
|
| const int32 main() {
| try {
| cout << "2 + 2 = " << int32(1, 0) + int32(1, 0);
| cout << endl;
| displayAnswer(int32(1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0));
|
| } catch (...) {
| return int32(1);
| }
|
| return int32(0);
| }

Again, please explain the logical idea you wanted to express.

--
                                                       Gabriel Dos Reis
                                           gdr@integrable-solutions.net

      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]