Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Don, el 3 de septiembre a las 17:30 me escribiste:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Walter Bright, el 3 de septiembre a las 01:16 me escribiste:
This will probably be the last OSX 10.5 release, the next should be 10.6.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.047.zip
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.032.zip
Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update.
These are a very good release, thanks for your work.
Aren't the new CTFE capabilities new features?
They're basically bug fixes. All that stuff should have worked.
Not all of them, I've seen the spacs have changed for D2:
http://www.dsource.org/projects/phobos/changeset/1262
I'm just talking about the changes that relaxed the CTFE restrictions
imposed in the specs. Again, that can be called simply a non-standard DMD
extension to D1 and that would be fine with me.
Don't get me wrong, as I stated before, I'm really glad D1 get some new
features/improvements, I just think the changes should be a little more
tested before hit D1 (and new aditions to D1 should be more planned, for
example, leaving them in D2 for a few releases only, so you can get real
feedback from users before puting them in D1, and having some version
scheme to indicate when new features are added).
I believe you will find the new CTFE very stable. In implementing the
improvements, many structural problems were fixed. It turns out to be
a very effective way of diagnosing bugs.
You never know. People use features in extremely different ways, sometimes
in ways you can't possibly foreseen (I think once Walter said that about
the kind of magic you do with CTFE =). Maybe you break some code that
relied on something that doesn't compile (as Bartoz shows in his last post
=).
Yes, but that's true of ANY bug fix. In fact, the CTFE "features" are
much smaller changes than many of the bug fixes. The biggest CTFE change
was actually the fact that references didn't work properly. (They
compiled but generated wrong code).
I'm not so worried about CTFE stuff, because the compiler behaviour has,
up to now, departed so radically from the spec that it hasn't been
possible to depend on it. Eg, x[x.length - 4]='c'; compiled, but
x[$-4]='c' did not compile! More importantly, CTFE is almost completely
isolated from the rest of the compiler: it can't break anything that's
not CTFE.
AFAIK, the only areas where DMD1 can still get "new features" is CTFE,
array operations, and contract inheritance. They are the three areas
where the implementation wasn't finished when D2 began, and where the
compiler behaviour has never been close to the spec. It is likely, for
example, that unions will need to be disallowed in CTFE, but there's
absolutely no reason why 'new' expressions should be disallowed.
Similarly, the specs say nothing about whether array expressions are
legal in CTFE.
I'm not saying that would happen, I'm just saying that there is a lot
of D out there, and even a simple change should be taken with care.
Indeed. There are still D1 bugs which can only be fixed by some fairly
large compiler changes. On the CTFE side, fixing bug 1330 is going to be
far more disruptive than anything in this release.
There
are 2 versions of D, one stable and one in development, I think that
should be used and put new features out there in the development version
only for some time, just to be sure, and then move them to the stable
version (some sort of Debian testing/stable =P).
In theory, that already happens to an extent. The version recommended
for download is not the latest one. I do wonder if anyone actually
*uses* the recommended one, though!
And I want to say again that all your contribution, in this release in the
CTFE front specially, is really impressive, and I hope you keep doing what
you're doing for a long time, even if changes are folded in D1 with blind
trust =)
Thanks. I figured that right now, the most useful thing I can do is to
patch the compiler. So I've put everything else on hold.
