On Saturday, 29 July 2017 at 19:51:30 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 29 July 2017 at 19:26:03 UTC, FoxyBrown wrote:
Also, equating dmd to an audio program or a clip art program
that is designed to load any and all files in it's install dir
is moronic too.
I like to add files to the dmd install directory to expand its
"just works" library.
I was bitten by this change too. I'm of the opinion that
splitting std.datetime was a waste of time and also that the
package.d feature is misdesigned. It should ALSO allow any
other file to be passed with the module declaration that
matches... you know, like every other module in the language.
Why it got this bizarre special requirement is beyond me.
If it did, then we could easily enough just leave the old file.
But no, it requires the new one, but then prolly on efficiency
grounds, doesn't check it first meaning the old one can
silently conflict. Ugh.
But the fix here is to fix the bizarre package.d design. Don't
break the zip for cases like mine where adding files is a key
feature of it.
I don't mind the issue as long as it is stated clearly what must
be done(e.g., simply add "requires cleaned installed directory").
What pisses me off more more than anything is the asinine people
defending the behavior as if it is acceptable and that it is the
users fault to know that the behavior.
Many programs I use can be upgraded without issue by copying over
the data files. Dmd did not have this program until recently and
so, because it isn't stated it is a problem, how the hell is the
user suppose to know that? Specially when it worked correct the
first time, the second time, the third time, etc.
