On 10/5/09 15:46, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:12:32 -0400, Denis Koroskin <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:55:49 +0400, Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/5/09 13:49, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:54:22 -0400, Walter Bright
<[email protected]> wrote:
Another OSX 10.5 release :-)
Anyhow, this should work with gdb now, and has contract inheritance
(finally).
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.048.zip
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.033.zip
Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update.
Excellent work! It looks like a lot of mundane bugs are getting fixed,
which is a good sign :)
A couple questions:
1. "The result type of the typeid(type) is now the most derived
TypeInfo
class, rather than the TypeInfo base class" Why can't this be
propogated
to D1? I can't imagine code that depends on the return value being
typed
as TypeInfo that would not simply just work with the most derived
return
type...
2. A while ago, (I can't find the post, it may have been on reddit) you
mentioned that you were going to add property notation. Is that still
going to happen? I'm really looking forward to that, and if not, is
there a reason?
There are some traces of it in the code:
http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmd/changeset/195 search for "property".
-Steve
int bar() @property
{
return 42;
}
writeln(bar);
Yay! :)
Cool :)
Unfortunately, this still compiles :(
int bar()
{
return 42;
}
writeln("%d", bar);
And this too:
int bar() @property
{
return 42;
}
writeln("%d", bar());
So it appears that @property is a noop for now, but is valid syntax.
Also interesting from this revelation is that attributes are coming :D
I just hope that they also will be user defined.
int bar() @blah
{
return 42;
}
#../dmd-2.033/linux/bin/dmd -w testme.d
testme.d(8): valid attribute identifiers are property, not blah
-Steve
