www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - Is TDPL an accurate description of the D language today?

reply Mark <smarksc gmail.com> writes:
I've been going through Andrei's excellent book and I noticed 
that the latest printing is from 2010. Since D is still a very 
young language I can imagine it changing quite a bit within six 
years. So I wonder if there are any major inconsistincies between 
the current state of the language and its description in TDPL. Is 
there a list somewhere with all the changes made in the langauge 
since the book was published?

Thanks a lot.
Sep 27 2016
parent reply Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On 9/27/16 1:38 PM, Mark wrote:

 I've been going through Andrei's excellent book and I noticed that the
 latest printing is from 2010. Since D is still a very young language I
 can imagine it changing quite a bit within six years. So I wonder if
 there are any major inconsistincies between the current state of the
 language and its description in TDPL. Is there a list somewhere with all
 the changes made in the langauge since the book was published?

 Thanks a lot.


Most things that are "wrong" in the book should be in the errata: 
http://erdani.com/tdpl/errata/

There are also some things that are not wrong in the book, but have not 
been implemented.

I think the most glaring difference is that "clear" has been renamed to 
"destroy".

-Steve
Sep 27 2016
next sibling parent Mark <smarksc gmail.com> writes:
OK. Thanks, Steve.
Sep 28 2016
prev sibling parent reply Mark <smarksc gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 17:53:39 UTC, Steven 
Schveighoffer wrote:

 On 9/27/16 1:38 PM, Mark wrote:

 I've been going through Andrei's excellent book and I noticed 
 that the
 latest printing is from 2010. Since D is still a very young 
 language I
 can imagine it changing quite a bit within six years. So I 
 wonder if
 there are any major inconsistincies between the current state 
 of the
 language and its description in TDPL. Is there a list 
 somewhere with all
 the changes made in the langauge since the book was published?

 Thanks a lot.


 Most things that are "wrong" in the book should be in the 
 errata: http://erdani.com/tdpl/errata/

 There are also some things that are not wrong in the book, but 
 have not been implemented.

 I think the most glaring difference is that "clear" has been 
 renamed to "destroy".

 -Steve


Another thing that I found today is that the book suggests nested 
structs within functions are of little use. I guess Voldemort 
types were introduced into the language after the book was 
published.

Should this be on the errata page? It's not exactly an error.
Oct 28 2016
parent rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:
On 29/10/2016 1:35 AM, Mark wrote:

 On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 at 17:53:39 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 On 9/27/16 1:38 PM, Mark wrote:

 I've been going through Andrei's excellent book and I noticed that the
 latest printing is from 2010. Since D is still a very young language I
 can imagine it changing quite a bit within six years. So I wonder if
 there are any major inconsistincies between the current state of the
 language and its description in TDPL. Is there a list somewhere with all
 the changes made in the langauge since the book was published?

 Thanks a lot.


 Most things that are "wrong" in the book should be in the errata:
 http://erdani.com/tdpl/errata/

 There are also some things that are not wrong in the book, but have
 not been implemented.

 I think the most glaring difference is that "clear" has been renamed
 to "destroy".

 -Steve


 Another thing that I found today is that the book suggests nested
 structs within functions are of little use. I guess Voldemort types were
 introduced into the language after the book was published.

 Should this be on the errata page? It's not exactly an error.


Ranges were the 'big' idiom that changed this.
Otherwise they are indeed of little use.

I think it shouldn't be included, but since you feel otherwise, email 
Andrei and let him know, no harm either way :)
Oct 28 2016