On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:27:01 +0000, Jonathan Crapuchettes wrote: > On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:08:50 -0800, Walter Bright wrote: > >> Ok, this is it: >> >> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb >> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm >> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm >> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb >> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm >> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm >> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe >> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip >> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg >> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb >> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb > > First, I would like to thank everyone who has put hard work into the > latest release and am really excited about the enhancements and fixed > bugs. > > Second, I agree with others that this should have been 2.064, not > 2.064.2. This is an initial release not a patch/minor release. > > Third, the fix for the issue at https://d.puremagic.com/issues/ > show_bug.cgi?id=10690 was not included in the release and is a blocking > bug for my company's code base. Till there is a new release with that > fix included, we will not be able to use 2.064. > > Many thanks again for a great programming language, > Jonathan from EMSI
I just double checked the code in issue 10690 and it works just fine. I had assumed that my code was similar enough to not have been worth an additional bug report. I was wrong. I'll log a bug report and try to work around the assertion failure in std.algorithm. Thanks again, Jonathan
