digitalmars.D - Re: (git HEAD) std.datetime spewing deprecation messages
- Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> Jun 05 2014
- Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> Jun 05 2014
- "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> Jun 06 2014
- "monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> Jun 06 2014
- Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> Jun 06 2014
- "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com> Jun 06 2014
- Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> Jun 06 2014
- "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com> Jun 06 2014
- "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> Jun 07 2014
- Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> Jun 07 2014
- "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> Jun 07 2014
- "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> Jun 07 2014
- Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> Jun 07 2014
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:15:11 -0400 Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:Respectfully disagree, the API looks very good to me. And decidedly not C-like.
It's not even _possible_ to write a function like this in C or in C++98 (though - though maybe C++11/14 can). I don't know of any other language where a function like this can exist. I think that it's actually a great example of what you can do with D, and it's implementation not shows off a number of basic features, but it's simple enough that it's not at all hard to understand in spite of how fancy what it's doing is. I've never seen another language that had metaprogramming language capabilities as simple and powerful as this. Sure, you could argue that having the function take ref instead of pointers would be better (though that's debatable) and that using pointers instead of ref is too C-like, but since you unfortunately can't actually have variadic template arguments which are ref, we're stuck with pointers for that overload of split even if we would have wanted to do it differently. getopt is in the same boat, so it's already doing what some other important D functions do. - Jonathan M Davis
Jun 05 2014
Jonathan, every one of your postings starts a new thread rather than staying in the one you reply to.
Jun 05 2014
It happens regularly with posts going through mailman.
Jun 06 2014
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 08:58:44 UTC, Kagamin wrote:It happens regularly with posts going through mailman.
It happens "sometimes". Jonathan's post have been doing it *every time* in the last couple of days...
Jun 06 2014
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:21:56 +0000 monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 08:58:44 UTC, Kagamin wrote:It happens regularly with posts going through mailman.
It happens "sometimes". Jonathan's post have been doing it *every time* in the last couple of days...
Hmmm. It looks like it works fine when I post from home but consistently gets screwed up when I post from work. I have to interact with the web interface for my e-mail client at work for sending messages, because stupdily, SMTP is blocked (so sending from my local client doesn't work), and something about that process seems to have recently stopped working properly with threading. I may have to stop posting from work for the time being. :| - Jonathan M Davis
Jun 06 2014
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 09:47:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:I may have to stop posting from work for the time being. :|
usual NG workflow, but maybe the forum interface could offer some relief? -Wyatt
Jun 06 2014
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 12:49:42 +0000 Wyatt via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 09:47:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:I may have to stop posting from work for the time being. :|
usual NG workflow, but maybe the forum interface could offer some relief?
Maybe, but the problem is that it's my e-mail client (via IMAP) which keeps track of everything that I have and haven't read. Interacting with the forum at work and my e-mail client at home wouldn't work very well, though I could probably dig through the forum and figure out which post it is that I'm trying to reply to and reply in the forum. I'm sure that I can figure something out, but the situation is definitely a bit of a pain. I've never understood why my employer's IT department insists on blocking _outgoing_ ports. It's _really_ annoying to the employees and doesn't help with security except against machines which are already infected with something. It took us ages to get them to even open the outbound ssh port. - Jonathan M Davis
Jun 06 2014
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 13:04:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:It took us ages to get them to even open the outbound ssh port.
reverse SSH tunnel! ...Not that I have all sort of experience with these because of WebSense's bizarrely overzealous tendency to block URIs with "blog" in them, regardless of the useful documentation they might have. What ever could you be talking about? (orz) -Wyatt
Jun 06 2014
On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 13:04:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:I've never understood why my employer's IT department insists on blocking _outgoing_ ports.
Blocking outgoing SMPT is a good and easy practice to block spam.
Jun 07 2014
On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 20:24:39 +0000 Kagamin via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:On Friday, 6 June 2014 at 13:04:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:I've never understood why my employer's IT department insists on blocking _outgoing_ ports.
Blocking outgoing SMPT is a good and easy practice to block spam.
Only if you care about spam _leaving_ your network, not entering it. I don't know how much an IT department should worry about that or not - I wouldn't have thought that it would be a real concern, but maybe there's a reason to worry about that. However, as an employee, it's _extremely_ annoying, and it costs me time (and thus costs the company mony) every time I need to send an e-mail with a personal e-mail account rather than my corporate one. - Jonathan M Davis
Jun 07 2014
Of course sending spam is worse than receiving. You can try secure SMTP, if your server supports it. AFAIK, it was a solution to spam problem, so it shouldn't be blocked.
Jun 07 2014
Or better - some mail servers provide additional smtp port, which handles only authenticated client-server smtp, it shouldn't be blocked either (spamers use unauthenticated server-server smtp).
Jun 07 2014
On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 21:07:49 +0000 Kagamin via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:Of course sending spam is worse than receiving.
If you say so. I don't know why you'd really care beyond the fact that it's rude. Concern about getting blocked by other SMTP servers?You can try secure SMTP, if your server supports it. AFAIK, it was a solution to spam problem, so it shouldn't be blocked.
Oh, I'm trying to use secure SMTP - not SMTP over port 25, but the IT department blocks pretty much _everything_. They even block _NTP_, which is just plain stupid IMHO. They pretty much seem to have only opened a port if a VP complained loudly enough for long enough. So, you're lucky if much of anything beyond port 80 or 443 works. - Jonathan M Davis
Jun 07 2014