From alexandroskapretsos at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 06:49:51 2026 From: alexandroskapretsos at gmail.com (Kapendev) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2026 06:49:51 +0000 Subject: Laser-D announcement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wednesday, 29 July 2026 at 19:56:31 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote: > On Wednesday, 29 July 2026 at 17:57:14 UTC, antonio wrote: >> Glad to see UFCS survived. Though with optional parentheses >> rejected, the chaining style loses some of its appeal. Was >> that trade-off deliberate? >> > > My thinking was that the parenthesis make it clear that its a > function call and not field access. Yes, but then we also have `object.thing`. The `object` could be a pointer or a simple value. My senior told me that being explicit is ALWAYS good, escpecially with the billion dollar mistake that are pointers, so I propose we change the pointer case to: `object->thing`. Much explicit. Very readable. A true C language successor. From alexandroskapretsos at gmail.com Sat Aug 1 06:59:36 2026 From: alexandroskapretsos at gmail.com (Kapendev) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2026 06:59:36 +0000 Subject: Laser-D announcement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Saturday, 1 August 2026 at 06:49:51 UTC, Kapendev wrote: > On Wednesday, 29 July 2026 at 19:56:31 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar > wrote: >> On Wednesday, 29 July 2026 at 17:57:14 UTC, antonio wrote: >>> Glad to see UFCS survived. Though with optional parentheses >>> rejected, the chaining style loses some of its appeal. Was >>> that trade-off deliberate? >>> >> >> My thinking was that the parenthesis make it clear that its a >> function call and not field access. > > Yes, but then we also have `object.thing`. The `object` could > be a pointer or a simple value. My senior told me that being > explicit is ALWAYS good, escpecially with the billion dollar > mistake that are pointers, so I propose we change the pointer > case to: `object->thing`. > > Much explicit. Very readable. A true C language successor. Ignoring my above meme post, I do think that the `->` operator is not that bad. I can see why some C boomers would like it. From desisma at heidel.beer Sat Aug 1 17:39:20 2026 From: desisma at heidel.beer (Mindy Batek (0xEAB)) Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2026 17:39:20 +0000 Subject: dlang-dockerized: Summer 2026 Status Update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tuesday, 28 July 2026 at 01:38:08 UTC, Mindy Batek (0xEAB) wrote: > #### Sunset of the ?Bookworm? branch > > There?s another victim of this new policy change. And one that > may actually hurt a bit. In order to keep the maintenance > overhead low, all upcoming changes are only applied to the new > ?Trixie? branch and won?t be backported to the ?Bookworm? one. > > Hence maintenance of the ?Bookworm? branch is ending by end of > the month. But don?t worry, the published bookworm-based images > will stay available as-is. And users can just write a > Containerfile that uses a legacy image for building and copies > over the resulting binaries into an up-to-date Bookworm image. > Additionally, the legacy Containerfiles can still be found in > the Git repository and be built by users on their own. It?s time to say my goodbyes? The final round of bookworm-based container images has been built and pushed to both registries. Farewell Bookworm, trusty old friend! No fear. Trixie will follow in your footsteps.