On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:19:11 +0300, Denis Koroskin wrote: > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:15:47 +0300, Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote: > >> "Don" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> The standard download still points to DMD1.030 (May 2008). A couple of >>> hundred serious bugs have been fixed since that time. Some of the >>> intermediate releases had regressions which prevented many people from >>> using them, but I don't think that's true of this one. I think >>> it's a great release. >>> >>> The known regressions of DMD1.051 compared to DMD1.030 are: >>> >>> 2393 IFTI regression on (T:char)(T[]) vs (T:dchar)(T[]) 370 Compiler >>> stack overflow on recursive typeof in function declaration. >>> 3469 ICE(func.c): Regression. Calling non-template function as a >>> template, >>> from another module >>> >>> but in my opinion these are not serious enough to prevent 1.051 from >>> being >>> recommended. (BTW I've already sent Walter patches for those second >>> two bugs). >>> >>> I'd like to protect newbies from encountering internal compiler errors >>> which have already been fixed, and from experiencing frustration with >>> CTFE. >>> >>> If anyone has a reason that they have to use 1.030 instead of 1.051, >>> now would be a great time to say why. >> >> The only potential problem I see with that is that if you want to use >> tango, >> any DMD beyond 1.043 would force you to go with tango trunk, which >> wouldn't >> make much sense for anyone who is trying to stick with "stable" >> releases of >> things. >> >> >> > Recent poll has shown that most people use Tango trunk anyway. Perhaps, > it's time for another Tango release?
1.051 looks like a good choice for a stable dmd version. I think that a new Tango release is underway already.
