www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - DMD 0.154 release

reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Had to do an update since --gc-sections broke exception handling.

Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many fonts 
they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Apr 12 2006
next sibling parent reply pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <e1jeql$2vcl$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
Had to do an update since --gc-sections broke exception handling.

Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many fonts 
they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.

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

You're not kidding. I found it somewhat humorous that the linked page exhibits the very problem you're citing: * Numeric suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'L' instead. * Floating point suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'i' instead. (pipes used for effect) - EricAnderton at yahoo
Apr 12 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
pragma wrote:
 In article <e1jeql$2vcl$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
 Had to do an update since --gc-sections broke exception handling.

 Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many fonts 
 they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.

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

You're not kidding. I found it somewhat humorous that the linked page exhibits the very problem you're citing: * Numeric suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'L' instead. * Floating point suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'i' instead.

Yup. I got this idea from the JSF document on C++ coding standards. I've also wondered about disallowing single letter declarations when those letters are lower case l, upper case I, or upper case O, or if that is going too far.
Apr 12 2006
next sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 pragma wrote:
 In article <e1jeql$2vcl$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
 Had to do an update since --gc-sections broke exception handling.

 Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many 
 fonts they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.

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

You're not kidding. I found it somewhat humorous that the linked page exhibits the very problem you're citing: * Numeric suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'L' instead. * Floating point suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'i' instead.

Yup. I got this idea from the JSF document on C++ coding standards. I've also wondered about disallowing single letter declarations when those letters are lower case l, upper case I, or upper case O, or if that is going too far.

That seems to me to be going too far. Let a style guide do that work, that is its natural role.
Apr 12 2006
parent reply Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 
 pragma wrote:

 In article <e1jeql$2vcl$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...

 Had to do an update since --gc-sections broke exception handling.

 Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many 
 fonts they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.

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

You're not kidding. I found it somewhat humorous that the linked page exhibits the very problem you're citing: * Numeric suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'L' instead. * Floating point suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'i' instead.

Yup. I got this idea from the JSF document on C++ coding standards. I've also wondered about disallowing single letter declarations when those letters are lower case l, upper case I, or upper case O, or if that is going too far.

That seems to me to be going too far. Let a style guide do that work, that is

Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where l, I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each other, then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community. I promised Derek to not put down a certain programming language, but let's just say, that anyone with a history of C (or C++), can't in their worst nightmares, imagine using a font that doesn't make a difference between 0, O, 1, l, I,,, etc. Having said that, I don't have a specific opinion about what Walter was thinking of.
Apr 13 2006
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Georg Wrede wrote:
 Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where l, 
 I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each other, 
 then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.
 
 I promised Derek to not put down a certain programming language, but 
 let's just say, that anyone with a history of C (or C++), can't in their 
 worst nightmares, imagine using a font that doesn't make a difference 
 between 0, O, 1, l, I,,, etc.
 
 Having said that, I don't have a specific opinion about what Walter was 
 thinking of.

I certainly prefer a font that distinguishes them. But arial and helvetica don't, are very common, and tend to creep in by default.
Apr 13 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Georg Wrede wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:

 pragma wrote:

 In article <e1jeql$2vcl$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...

 Had to do an update since --gc-sections broke exception handling.

 Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many 
 fonts they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.

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

You're not kidding. I found it somewhat humorous that the linked page exhibits the very problem you're citing: * Numeric suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'L' instead. * Floating point suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'i' instead.

Yup. I got this idea from the JSF document on C++ coding standards. I've also wondered about disallowing single letter declarations when those letters are lower case l, upper case I, or upper case O, or if that is going too far.

That seems to me to be going too far. Let a style guide do that work, that is

Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where l, I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each other, then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.

What about if they are using an IDE with support for 1 font only?
Apr 13 2006
next sibling parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
clayasaurus wrote:
 Georg Wrede wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:

 pragma wrote:

 In article <e1jeql$2vcl$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...

 Had to do an update since --gc-sections broke exception handling.

 Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many 
 fonts they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.

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

You're not kidding. I found it somewhat humorous that the linked page exhibits the very problem you're citing: * Numeric suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'L' instead. * Floating point suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'i' instead.

Yup. I got this idea from the JSF document on C++ coding standards. I've also wondered about disallowing single letter declarations when those letters are lower case l, upper case I, or upper case O, or if that is going too far.

That seems to me to be going too far. Let a style guide do that work, that is

Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where l, I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each other, then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.

What about if they are using an IDE with support for 1 font only?

I would tell them to get a new one.
Apr 13 2006
prev sibling parent Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
clayasaurus wrote:
 Georg Wrede wrote:
 Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where 
 l, I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each 
 other, then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.


Let's just say, such an IDE "may" not become enjoyed by a critical mass.
Apr 16 2006
prev sibling parent reply "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:41:30 +1000, Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> wrote:



 Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where l,  
 I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each other,  
 then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.

 I promised Derek to not put down a certain programming language, but  
 let's just say, that anyone with a history of C (or C++), can't in their  
 worst nightmares, imagine using a font that doesn't make a difference  
 between 0, O, 1, l, I,,, etc.

ROTFLOL ... I went so far as to create a variety of Courier that changed the lowercase L to look like the lowercase T (t) but without the bar, and put a dot inside the Zero glyph to make it distinguishable. If anyone wants it just let me know. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia
Apr 13 2006
next sibling parent reply John C <johnch_atms hotmail.com> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:41:30 +1000, Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> wrote:
 
 
 
 Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where 
 l,  I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each 
 other,  then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.

 I promised Derek to not put down a certain programming language, but  
 let's just say, that anyone with a history of C (or C++), can't in 
 their  worst nightmares, imagine using a font that doesn't make a 
 difference  between 0, O, 1, l, I,,, etc.

ROTFLOL ... I went so far as to create a variety of Courier that changed the lowercase L to look like the lowercase T (t) but without the bar, and put a dot inside the Zero glyph to make it distinguishable. If anyone wants it just let me know.

Consolas nicely distinguishes between the letter O and the number 0. As do DejaVu Mono and Monaco. It's just a shame Consolas isn't widely available yet (and requires ClearType to do it justice - which is fine by me, I can't stand looking at a screen without ClearType turned on anyway).
Apr 14 2006
next sibling parent reply Deewiant <deewiant.doesnotlike.spam gmail.com> writes:
John C wrote:
 It's just a shame Consolas isn't widely available yet (and requires
 ClearType to do it justice - which is fine by me, I can't stand looking
 at a screen without ClearType turned on anyway).

My eyes start hurting if I look at a screen _with_ ClearType turned on for too long. I suppose it's because it's designed for LCD screens and I've always used a CRT.
Apr 14 2006
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Deewiant wrote:
 John C wrote:
 It's just a shame Consolas isn't widely available yet (and requires
 ClearType to do it justice - which is fine by me, I can't stand looking
 at a screen without ClearType turned on anyway).

My eyes start hurting if I look at a screen _with_ ClearType turned on for too long. I suppose it's because it's designed for LCD screens and I've always used a CRT.

It doesn't even look good on all LCDs. Not sure why, but ClearType looks blurry on mine. Sean
Apr 14 2006
parent reply John C <johnch_atms hotmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 Deewiant wrote:
 
 John C wrote:

 It's just a shame Consolas isn't widely available yet (and requires
 ClearType to do it justice - which is fine by me, I can't stand looking
 at a screen without ClearType turned on anyway).

My eyes start hurting if I look at a screen _with_ ClearType turned on for too long. I suppose it's because it's designed for LCD screens and I've always used a CRT.

It doesn't even look good on all LCDs. Not sure why, but ClearType looks blurry on mine. Sean

Have you got the ClearType tuning applet? It installs into the Windows Control Panel and allows you to fine-tune the sub-pixel rendering to make it sharper or softer. http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypePowerToy.mspx There's also a third-party app that does a simlar job http://www.ioisland.com/cleartweak/
Apr 14 2006
next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
John C wrote:
 
 Have you got the ClearType tuning applet? It installs into the Windows 
 Control Panel and allows you to fine-tune the sub-pixel rendering to 
 make it sharper or softer.
 http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypePowerToy.mspx

Thanks, that did help a bit. I'm still not entirely happy with it--there's just enough blur around the font edges from anti-aliasing that things look a tad off--but it's certainly better than before. I think I'll stick to 'standard' for now. Perhaps my next LCD will fare better. I do like the way text looks on Macs I've seen. Sean
Apr 14 2006
prev sibling parent Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
John C wrote:
 Have you got the ClearType tuning applet? It installs into the Windows 
 Control Panel and allows you to fine-tune the sub-pixel rendering to 
 make it sharper or softer.

It may be out-of-line here for me to take issue, but I have exactly 2 things with ClearType. First, to get a patent for something, the US law states that it has to be outside "the state of the art". I disagree. Anybody who has been to an art fair where there's a tinted-lead window (like in Churches), a bit in front of a picture or a text, has come to think of this idea, possibly more than a tousand years ago. Second, understanding that the human eye understands grey-tones _separately_ from color, only needs an undergraduate "degree" in physiology. Therefore: the way beavers fell trees (gnawing at them till the stem becomes narrow enough to not support the _inherent_ imbalance in _any_ living thing (thus resulting in a fall to one or another direction), and thus enabling trees to fall in the first place), _should_ not be patented by man. (Opposition says: so how come the beaver is successful in making a deliberate and successful effort at making dams??? Well, it's because it can _look_ at the Birch (or whatever), and see the imbalance. Now, try to patent _that_!) Given the antics of the Contemporary American Judicial System, and the corollaries of "whoever gets the smartest lawyer wins", as opposed to, whoeven remotely represents "right" or the "truth" (and the unfortunate conviction on this aberration being some kind of reality -- which it becomes, when everybody start actually believing that), it is no wonder that ClearType can ever be faced without a roar of laughter at the Patent Office. --- I have personally invented the same technique, I guess some two decades ago. I originally aimed it at Sony Trinitron displays. (There were no color LCD displays around at the time.) (More accurately, only those of them that happened to "about" match the vertical grid to the nominal horizonal resolution of the display, were my target. (Which was too seldom to show _obvious_ economic profitability to prospective venture capitalists.)) I don't have any Official Documents corroborating this, and that is _only_ because I never thought the idea anywhere near worthwhile to even _try_ to patent. It simply was way too obvious to me. (As in, not being an idea "every highly skilled craftman in the industry wouldn't come to think of at the first hint of need.) --- Bottom line: (andy you may (and should!)) distribute this text to any party that even remotely may have a vested enough interest in challenging the ClearType "patent". I'll be more than eager to appear on the Witness Stand. (Oh yeah, and I'm the guy they can't bribe: I'm not in it for the money.) (By this time even the opponents oughtta guess I'm not from the US!)
Apr 16 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
John C wrote:
 
 It's just a shame Consolas isn't widely available yet (and requires 
 ClearType to do it justice - which is fine by me, I can't stand looking 
 at a screen without ClearType turned on anyway).

ClearType looks like garbage on my screens. I have font smoothing set to "standard" in Windows. I don't suppose there's a place this font can be downloaded? Sean
Apr 14 2006
parent John C <johnch_atms hotmail.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 John C wrote:
 
 It's just a shame Consolas isn't widely available yet (and requires 
 ClearType to do it justice - which is fine by me, I can't stand 
 looking at a screen without ClearType turned on anyway).

ClearType looks like garbage on my screens. I have font smoothing set to "standard" in Windows. I don't suppose there's a place this font can be downloaded? Sean

I'm sure googling for "download Consolas" would find a link pretty soon. But it's not been officially released.
Apr 14 2006
prev sibling parent reply Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
John C wrote:
 Derek Parnell wrote:
 
 On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:41:30 +1000, Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> wrote:



 Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where 
 l,  I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each 
 other,  then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.

 I promised Derek to not put down a certain programming language, but  
 let's just say, that anyone with a history of C (or C++), can't in 
 their  worst nightmares, imagine using a font that doesn't make a 
 difference  between 0, O, 1, l, I,,, etc.

ROTFLOL ... I went so far as to create a variety of Courier that changed the lowercase L to look like the lowercase T (t) but without the bar, and put a dot inside the Zero glyph to make it distinguishable. If anyone wants it just let me know.

Consolas nicely distinguishes between the letter O and the number 0. As do DejaVu Mono and Monaco. It's just a shame Consolas isn't widely available yet (and requires ClearType to do it justice - which is fine by me, I can't stand looking at a screen without ClearType turned on anyway).

It's not about telling folks what such a font would be. It's all (and only) about: _either_ a programmer intuitively goes thorugh the trouble (on whatever platform he happens to be on) of finding a font that does distinguish the letters, or he doesn't. [Unprovoked, without a hint, or advice, or without his teacher, or Bobdamn uncle-in-law demanding it at gunpoint.] --- (Ok, it's a major holiday now, so I'm trying to be more frank than on regular week-days: I might say that, "if a person is smart enough to roam the net enough to stumble on D, then that's a merit in itself. Then, if that person sees the point of using D as opposed to [the number of] competing languages[like C, C++, Java, Perl, Ruby, or Python], then that, should be considered an equally solid merit. Wherefrom follows:(!) we really don't have to tell _that_ guy [ehhhh, that _person_ (after all, I'm from the Noric countries, where they let women become President(!!!!))], which font he should use? Right?
Apr 16 2006
parent John C <johnch_atms hotmail.com> writes:
Georg Wrede wrote:
 John C wrote:
 
 Derek Parnell wrote:

 On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:41:30 +1000, Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> 
 wrote:



 Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where 
 l,  I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each 
 other,  then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.

 I promised Derek to not put down a certain programming language, 
 but  let's just say, that anyone with a history of C (or C++), can't 
 in their  worst nightmares, imagine using a font that doesn't make a 
 difference  between 0, O, 1, l, I,,, etc.

ROTFLOL ... I went so far as to create a variety of Courier that changed the lowercase L to look like the lowercase T (t) but without the bar, and put a dot inside the Zero glyph to make it distinguishable. If anyone wants it just let me know.

Consolas nicely distinguishes between the letter O and the number 0. As do DejaVu Mono and Monaco. It's just a shame Consolas isn't widely available yet (and requires ClearType to do it justice - which is fine by me, I can't stand looking at a screen without ClearType turned on anyway).

It's not about telling folks what such a font would be. It's all (and only) about: _either_ a programmer intuitively goes thorugh the trouble (on whatever platform he happens to be on) of finding a font that does distinguish the letters, or he doesn't. [Unprovoked, without a hint, or advice, or without his teacher, or Bobdamn uncle-in-law demanding it at gunpoint.]

Why shouldn't someone be able offer a (hopefully) helpful suggestion? The OP was about altering a font to better distinguish between certain glyphs, when there are already fonts available which do that. Take this in the spirit it was meant. Not as a chance to get all high and mighty.
 
 ---
 
 (Ok, it's a major holiday now, so I'm trying to be more frank than on 
 regular week-days: I might say that, "if a person is smart enough to 
 roam the net enough to stumble on D, then that's a merit in itself. 
 Then, if that person sees the point of using D as opposed to [the number 
 of] competing languages[like C, C++, Java, Perl, Ruby, or Python], then 
 that, should be considered an equally solid merit.
 
 Wherefrom follows:(!) we really don't have to tell _that_ guy [ehhhh, 
 that _person_ (after all, I'm from the Noric countries, where they let 
 women become President(!!!!))], which font he should use? Right?

Apr 17 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:41:30 +1000, Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> wrote:
 
 
 
 Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where 
 l, I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each 
 other, then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.

 I promised Derek to not put down a certain programming language, but 
 let's just say, that anyone with a history of C (or C++), can't in 
 their worst nightmares, imagine using a font that doesn't make a 
 difference between 0, O, 1, l, I,,, etc.

ROTFLOL ... I went so far as to create a variety of Courier that changed the lowercase L to look like the lowercase T (t) but without the bar, and put a dot inside the Zero glyph to make it distinguishable. If anyone wants it just let me know. --Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia

Huh? Doesn't Courier New already distinguishes between the two? ilIL0O -> all look different. -- Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Apr 14 2006
parent reply "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:45:00 +1000, Bruno Medeiros  
<brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> wrote:

 Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:41:30 +1000, Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org>  
 wrote:

 Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where  
 l, I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each  
 other, then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.

 I promised Derek to not put down a certain programming language, but  
 let's just say, that anyone with a history of C (or C++), can't in  
 their worst nightmares, imagine using a font that doesn't make a  
 difference between 0, O, 1, l, I,,, etc.

changed the lowercase L to look like the lowercase T (t) but without the bar, and put a dot inside the Zero glyph to make it distinguishable. If anyone wants it just let me know. --Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia

Huh? Doesn't Courier New already distinguishes between the two? ilIL0O -> all look different.

To me, the lowercase L and digit one (l1) were too similar, and the uppercase O and zero were also too similar. I also made the vertical bar glyph more distinct from other things by making a small break in it. I guess is a personal thing. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia
Apr 14 2006
next sibling parent Juan Jose Comellas <jcomellas gmail.com> writes:
Have you tried using the Anonymous font. It seems to have been specifically
designed for programming. It is free and can be downloaded from:

Windows/Linux: http://www.ms-studio.com/FontSales/Resources/AnonymousTT.zip
Max: http://www.ms-studio.com/FontSales/Resources/AnonymousTTMac.zip


Derek Parnell wrote:
 Huh? Doesn't Courier New already distinguishes between the two?
 ilIL0O -> all look different.

To me, the lowercase L and digit one (l1) were too similar, and the uppercase O and zero were also too similar. I also made the vertical bar glyph more distinct from other things by making a small break in it. I guess is a personal thing.

Apr 14 2006
prev sibling parent Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:
 To me, the lowercase L and digit one (l1) were too similar, and the  
 uppercase O and zero were also too similar.

Ahh, thaks for this remark. (Only too) often we completely forget to take in consideration the fact that every person is unique, and that from this (by the very definition), follows that we _ALL_ have to have _unique_ demands on the font. (As well as, actually, _all_ the other things or aspects we ever do evaluate or make demands of.) So, for example, one specific kind of need-of-prescription-glasses may make it imperative to have the font have characters as unique as possible _in_ the nort-east/south-west direction, and some other person possibly just in nort/south. --- "What's the _best_ programming language??" That's something I hear daily in some discussion groups where there are a lot of teen-agers. The groups inhabited by over-30 folks never see this question. --- But, to revert to the original issue, I think we (actually Walter) _have_the_right_ to *expect* from the programmer that he is able to find a non-ambiguous font -- all on his own. If he can't do that, then it's like giving 747 piloting lessons to a gorilla. (I.e., sure, given enough time.... and all that crap. But seriously, who'd ever want to be the passenger!!!)
Apr 16 2006
prev sibling parent Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:41:30 +1000, Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> wrote:
 
 Let's put it this way: if a programmer insists on using a font where 
 l,  I, 1, O, 0, etc. have the slightest chance of looking like each 
 other,  then that programmer is not one we'd want in the D community.

 I promised Derek to not put down a certain programming language, but  
 let's just say, that anyone with a history of C (or C++), can't in 
 their  worst nightmares, imagine using a font that doesn't make a 
 difference  between 0, O, 1, l, I,,, etc.

ROTFLOL ... I went so far as to create a variety of Courier that changed the lowercase L to look like the lowercase T (t) but without the bar, and put a dot inside the Zero glyph to make it distinguishable. If anyone wants it just let me know.

:-) Thanks!
Apr 16 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent jcc7 <jcc7_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <e1jjka$649$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
pragma wrote:
 In article <e1jeql$2vcl$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
 Had to do an update since --gc-sections broke exception handling.

 Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many fonts 
 they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.

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

You're not kidding. I found it somewhat humorous that the linked page exhibits the very problem you're citing: * Numeric suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'L' instead. * Floating point suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'i' instead.

Yup. I got this idea from the JSF document on C++ coding standards. I've also wondered about disallowing single letter declarations when those letters are lower case l, upper case I, or upper case O, or if that is going too far.

That'd be going too far. When I'm programming, I use a font that lets me see what I'm typing. I don't write programs in Arial or whichever font makes those all look the same. Similarly, D allows people to use Chinese characters as variables that might show up as blocks or question marks in my favorite font, but that's my problem. If my font can't display their code, it's my responsibility to use a suitable font. It's not the language's job to make all programs clearly visible in all fonts. jcc7
Apr 12 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 pragma wrote:
 In article <e1jeql$2vcl$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
 Had to do an update since --gc-sections broke exception handling.

 Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many 
 fonts they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.

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

You're not kidding. I found it somewhat humorous that the linked page exhibits the very problem you're citing: * Numeric suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'L' instead. * Floating point suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'i' instead.

Yup. I got this idea from the JSF document on C++ coding standards. I've also wondered about disallowing single letter declarations when those letters are lower case l, upper case I, or upper case O, or if that is going too far.

I've wondered the same thing. I never use those names for the confusion they can cause, but haven't been able to decide whether a more rigid enforcement might be too draconian. Sean
Apr 12 2006
parent BCS <BCS_member pathlink.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 pragma wrote:
 In article <e1jeql$2vcl$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...

 Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many 
 fonts they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.




 Yup. I got this idea from the JSF document on C++ coding standards. 
 I've also wondered about disallowing single letter declarations when 
 those letters are lower case l, upper case I, or upper case O, or if 
 that is going too far.

I've wondered the same thing. I never use those names for the confusion they can cause, but haven't been able to decide whether a more rigid enforcement might be too draconian. Sean

A code standard checker would be interesting. lexical & syntax (maybe semantic) front end + some sort of pattern recognition language?
Apr 12 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Victor Nakoryakov <nail-mail mail.ru> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Yup. I got this idea from the JSF document on C++ coding standards. I've 
 also wondered about disallowing single letter declarations when those 
 letters are lower case l, upper case I, or upper case O, or if that is 
 going too far.

Hm... I think bigger part of programmers use syntax highlighting in their editors, so numbers and identifiers have different colors. This is sufficient to distinguish problem characters. -- Victor (aka nail) Nakoryakov nail-mail<at>mail<dot>ru Krasnoznamensk, Moscow, Russia
Apr 13 2006
parent reply Stjepan Zlodi <stjepan remove.gmail.com> writes:
Victor Nakoryakov <nail-mail mail.ru> wrote in
news:e1ld45$24l8$1 digitaldaemon.com: 

 
 Hm... I think bigger part of programmers use syntax highlighting in 
 their editors, so numbers and identifiers have different colors. This
 is sufficient to distinguish problem characters.
 

...or you can use one of these fonts: http://www.lowing.org/fonts/ -- http://wolfwoodscrowd.info
Apr 14 2006
next sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Stjepan Zlodi" <stjepan remove.gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns97A55DFE399A5stjepangmail 63.105.9.61...
 ...or you can use one of these fonts: http://www.lowing.org/fonts/

Or one of these: http://www.proggyfonts.com/ ProggyCleanSZ. THE font. For everything.
Apr 14 2006
parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 "Stjepan Zlodi" <stjepan remove.gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:Xns97A55DFE399A5stjepangmail 63.105.9.61...
 ...or you can use one of these fonts: http://www.lowing.org/fonts/

Or one of these: http://www.proggyfonts.com/ ProggyCleanSZ. THE font. For everything.

Not for people who run 1600+ resolutions. (myself and others I'm sure) Bitmap fonts such as these just dont scale well.
Apr 14 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Stjepan Zlodi wrote:
 Victor Nakoryakov <nail-mail mail.ru> wrote in
 news:e1ld45$24l8$1 digitaldaemon.com: 
 
 Hm... I think bigger part of programmers use syntax highlighting in 
 their editors, so numbers and identifiers have different colors. This
 is sufficient to distinguish problem characters.

...or you can use one of these fonts: http://www.lowing.org/fonts/

This thread prompted me to find my ideal mono font, and I eventually landed on Anonymous.
Apr 14 2006
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Stjepan Zlodi wrote:
 Victor Nakoryakov <nail-mail mail.ru> wrote in
 news:e1ld45$24l8$1 digitaldaemon.com: 
 
 Hm... I think bigger part of programmers use syntax highlighting in 
 their editors, so numbers and identifiers have different colors. This
 is sufficient to distinguish problem characters.

...or you can use one of these fonts: http://www.lowing.org/fonts/

Thanks for the link. It contains the first viable alternatives to courier than I've seen. Sean
Apr 14 2006
prev sibling parent reply antonio <antonio abrevia.net> writes:
Walter Bright escribió:
 pragma wrote:
 In article <e1jeql$2vcl$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
 Had to do an update since --gc-sections broke exception handling.

 Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many 
 fonts they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.

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

You're not kidding. I found it somewhat humorous that the linked page exhibits the very problem you're citing: * Numeric suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'L' instead. * Floating point suffix '|' now deprecated, use 'i' instead.

Yup. I got this idea from the JSF document on C++ coding standards. I've also wondered about disallowing single letter declarations when those letters are lower case l, upper case I, or upper case O, or if that is going too far.

It's, basically, an absurd. When someone has font problems has to change the editor, the font, the coloring rules or the coding rules... this is not a job to be done by the compiler. I can't understand why you are introducing in the compiler this kind of limitatios... Why not deprecate some structured techniques because people has 14 ich screens?. Example: More than 80 characters in one line is a deprecated functionality Names are limited to 11 chars because incopatibility with old informix versions. Walter. There is time to close version 1.0 ... there is really important things to do inmediatelly (like a standard D complete debugger)... stop doing absurd thinks and help us to defend in our companies the use of the D programming language. I feel really awake when I read things like the "l" naming problem... Thank you and sorry for my english. Antonio
Apr 21 2006
parent reply Lionello Lunesu <lio lunesu.remove.com> writes:
antonio wrote:
 It's, basically, an absurd.

It's not that absurd. Everything else in C/C++/D is already case sensitive, so why not do the same for the L/i suffix?? L.
Apr 24 2006
parent reply antonio <antonio abrevia.net> writes:
Lionello Lunesu escribió:
 antonio wrote:
 It's, basically, an absurd.

It's not that absurd. Everything else in C/C++/D is already case sensitive, so why not do the same for the L/i suffix?? L.

"prohibition" of using a alphabetic valid ASCII char (Upper case or Lower case)... because "graphical representation" or "font look&feel"... for me is the same than the "prohibition" of using more than 80 chars by line because screen width limitation.... basically an absurd.... If you consider than "I" or "l" prefix are problematic... don't use them. There is really important needs... losting time in this kind of minor "look&feel problems" talks very bad about D platform road map... We need a debugger (and other unique things... but this is a very old discussion). I can't defend D language in my company because D is not a development platform... its only a Compiler... nothing more than this... basically, a toy (it's the conclusion of one recent meeting with the developers team in my company: D is not valid for our needs). Sorry... Antonio
Apr 25 2006
parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
antonio wrote:
 Lionello Lunesu escribió:
 antonio wrote:
 It's, basically, an absurd.

It's not that absurd. Everything else in C/C++/D is already case sensitive, so why not do the same for the L/i suffix?? L.

"prohibition" of using a alphabetic valid ASCII char (Upper case or Lower case)... because "graphical representation" or "font look&feel"... for me is the same than the "prohibition" of using more than 80 chars by line because screen width limitation.... basically an absurd.... If you consider than "I" or "l" prefix are problematic... don't use them. There is really important needs... losting time in this kind of minor "look&feel problems" talks very bad about D platform road map... We need a debugger (and other unique things... but this is a very old discussion). I can't defend D language in my company because D is not a development platform... its only a Compiler... nothing more than this... basically, a toy (it's the conclusion of one recent meeting with the developers team in my company: D is not valid for our needs). Sorry... Antonio

Very valid point. This is a triviality. Lets move on to the important things.
Apr 25 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent DBloke <DBloke NoSpam.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Had to do an update since --gc-sections broke exception handling.
 
 Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many fonts 
 they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Thanks Walter, Do you ever sleep ;)
Apr 13 2006
prev sibling parent BCS <BCS_member pathlink.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Had to do an update since --gc-sections broke exception handling.
 
 Also, 'I' and 'l' integer suffixes are deprecated, because in many fonts 
 they are indistinguishable from each other and from '1'.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

I is anyone else haveing probles with .154 on linux? this compiles /******************************/ import std.stdio; void main() { writef("hello world\n"); } /******************************/ this compiles on winXP but not linux /******************************/ import std.stream; void main() { auto s = new BugStream(); } class BugStream : Stream { this(){} size_t readBlock(void* buffer, size_t size){} size_t writeBlock(void* buffer, size_t size){} bool seekable(){return false;} ulong seek(long offset, SeekPos whence) { throw new SeekException("BugStream can't seek"); } } /******************************/
Apr 13 2006