On Thursday, 3 January 2013 at 08:25:41 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
1/3/2013 12:22 PM, Russel Winder пишет:
On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 13:59 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
[…]
I finally threw in the towel and don't use Ubuntu to play
music anymore.
I threw in the towel on Ubuntu when Unity came out
On Friday, 11 January 2013 at 06:37:31 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/10/2013 8:22 PM, deadalnix wrote:
I have to concurs with Walter here.
I know that must be hard for you, and I admire your sacrifice!
:-)
Ha, we have disagreement, but remember, people always make more
noise when they dis
On 2013-01-11 05:22, deadalnix wrote:
I have to concurs with Walter here. Knowing assembly language is a great
way to improve you knowledge of programming in general. This is way
easier than what most dev think.
I personally know assembly for ARM and x86, and it is clearly helpful.
I have no
On 2013-01-10 21:13, Walter Bright wrote:
No. But a reasonable way is to just get the instruction set reference
from Intel, and single step some D code in assembler mode in the
debugger and go instruction by instruction.
I see, thanks.
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how knowing as
On 1/10/2013 8:22 PM, deadalnix wrote:
I have to concurs with Walter here.
I know that must be hard for you, and I admire your sacrifice!
:-)
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 23:37:29 Pierre Rouleau wrote:
> Why not create a link to a second page that would contain that
> javascript so that people can decide to use it or not? Just adding a
> link to this on the version number for example. Getting the list that
> was available in previous r
On 13-01-10 12:13 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/4/2013 12:10 PM, r_m_r wrote:
I was wondering if it is possible to integrate some javascript in the
changelog
page to automatically generate the list of fixed issues as suggested
by Jonathan
(As an example, please see the attached file: jq.html).
On Thursday, 10 January 2013 at 18:30:10 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-01-10 06:18, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/9/2013 11:02 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
As I said, I don't know assembly but here's the output:
Good time to learn it!
Do you have any good books to recommend for this?
I will
On 1/10/2013 10:30 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-10 06:18, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/9/2013 11:02 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
As I said, I don't know assembly but here's the output:
Good time to learn it!
Do you have any good books to recommend for this?
No. But a reasonable way is t
On 2013-01-10 06:18, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/9/2013 11:02 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
As I said, I don't know assembly but here's the output:
Good time to learn it!
Do you have any good books to recommend for this?
I will most likely not have time to learn assembly now. I'm busy with
other
On 1/9/2013 11:02 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
As I said, I don't know assembly but here's the output:
Good time to learn it!
And I'm not kidding.
On 1/4/2013 12:10 PM, r_m_r wrote:
I was wondering if it is possible to integrate some javascript in the changelog
page to automatically generate the list of fixed issues as suggested by Jonathan
(As an example, please see the attached file: jq.html).
Thanks for doing this. It's an interesting
On 2013-01-09 11:38, Walter Bright wrote:
Watcha do is something like this:
__thread int x;
int foo() { return x; }
Compile, disassemble, and look at the code generated and the fixup
records. Then there's no need to guess :-)
As I said, I don't know assembly but here's the output:
Original
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:54:54 -0500
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Yea, this change is definitely a notable step backwards in
> presentation and usability.
>
And it doesn't help that, once again, the changelog is showing the
*next* release with no indication that it hasn't actually been released.
On 2013-01-09 19:53, John Colvin wrote:
Surely __thread is redundant there, seeing as x will be TLS by default?
We're talking C here and it's not default in C.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 10:38:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/9/2013 2:28 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-09 11:26, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I think it sounds like that but I don't know. I'm just trying
to figure
out how TLS is implemented on Mac OS X 10.7+.
Also, there's nothin
On 2013-01-09 17:16, David Nadlinger wrote:
I also think this is the best way of approaching such problems. If you
can, also try to find the source code for the involved code. In case of
trying to understand the OS X TLS mechanism, I found the following files
from dyld to be helpful:
http://ope
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 01:09:21 -0800
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 00:52:32 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > On 1/9/13 12:43 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 04, 2013 14:13:22 Walter Bright wrote:
> > >> It's THE SAME LIST as in the bugzilla list. It's e
On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 10:38:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Watcha do is something like this:
__thread int x;
int foo() { return x; }
Compile, disassemble, and look at the code generated and the
fixup records. Then there's no need to guess :-)
I also think this is the best way of appr
On 2013-01-09 11:38, Walter Bright wrote:
Watcha do is something like this:
__thread int x;
int foo() { return x; }
Compile, disassemble, and look at the code generated and the fixup
records. Then there's no need to guess :-)
Sure, I've already done that. I compared one version using "__thre
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> There is something to be said about proportional response. Shall we stop this
> now?
I propose to start another thread, maybe more constructive, where I
propose a small text describing what's new in 2.061. Is that OK?
On 1/9/2013 2:28 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-09 11:26, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I think it sounds like that but I don't know. I'm just trying to figure
out how TLS is implemented on Mac OS X 10.7+.
Also, there's nothing else that calls this tlv_get_addr function or the thunk so
I'm gues
On 2013-01-09 11:00, deadalnix wrote:
Isn't it horrible performancewise ?
I think it sounds like that but I don't know. I'm just trying to figure
out how TLS is implemented on Mac OS X 10.7+.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2013-01-09 11:26, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I think it sounds like that but I don't know. I'm just trying to figure
out how TLS is implemented on Mac OS X 10.7+.
Also, there's nothing else that calls this tlv_get_addr function or the
thunk so I'm guessing it's the compiler that calls it.
--
On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 07:57:12 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-01-07 09:04, Walter Bright wrote:
Please nail down what is necessary first. (BTW, I don't know
how the
compiler can tell what image an address comes from. Remember,
shared
libraries are loaded at runtime, not compile
We have a solution for it with templated functions but
no solution for
non-templated functions.
We have: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1019
It's ready to merge. So maybe in 2.062 this problem is solved.
On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 00:52:32 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/9/13 12:43 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Friday, January 04, 2013 14:13:22 Walter Bright wrote:
> >> It's THE SAME LIST as in the bugzilla list. It's even in the same order.
> >> It's just that the bugzilla generated lis
On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 16:25:10 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> So then what's this "rvalue ref problem" that's "still on the front
> burner"?
auto ref / the problem that C++'s const & deals with. The ability to have a
function which takes both lvalues and rvalues without copying them unless it
h
On 1/9/13 12:43 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, January 04, 2013 14:13:22 Walter Bright wrote:
It's THE SAME LIST as in the bugzilla list. It's even in the same order.
It's just that the bugzilla generated list is complete.
I don't understand your rationale that it's _far_ more user frie
On Friday, January 04, 2013 14:13:22 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/3/2013 10:44 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > P.S. Also, as a future improvement, we _really_ shouldn't be linking to
> > bugzilla for our list. I've never seen a release notes document or
> > changelog do that in my entire life. It wo
On 2013-01-07 09:04, Walter Bright wrote:
Please nail down what is necessary first. (BTW, I don't know how the
compiler can tell what image an address comes from. Remember, shared
libraries are loaded at runtime, not compile time.)
I've done some investigation. Currently DMD inserts a call to
On 2013-01-07 13:41, David Nadlinger wrote:
Yes, it is not supported by linker and dyld versions shipping with OS X
10.7. This is also the reason why LDC 2 only supports OS X 10.7+, as
LLVM does not implement a workaround for older versions (although
implementing one up to the point where it is
On 2013-01-07 23:04, Walter Bright wrote:
Me neither. Mac OS X 10.6 was released August 28, 2009. There have
been two
major releases since then.
Sounds like we can pull the plug.
I've been trying to see if it's possible to get the market share for Mac
OS X 10.6. This site claims it has just
On 2013-01-08 21:49, Walter Bright wrote:
So it won't run any 64 bit software?
It can run 64bit software just fine. Mac OS X has been able to do that
for a long time. 10.6 was the first version the kernel tries to run in
64bit mode (depends on the computer).
Just because the kernel doesn't
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:11:30 +0100
"deadalnix" wrote:
> On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 05:29:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:18:11 -0800
> > Walter Bright wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/7/2013 3:19 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:08:58 +0100
> >> > "deadal
On 1/8/2013 4:52 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 08:27 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I'm running 10.7 on my white MacBook from 2006.
Interesting, I was told not to try upgrading to Lion, but to stay with
Snow Leopard.
MacBook2.1, Core 2 Duo, 2GB.
This has a 64-bit processor, b
On 1/8/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
What about licensing issues, is it even legal to for D1's backend? I mean, I
don't mind doing it personally, because I believe I won't have any problems.
But company lawyers don't think so positively :)
If you've got a licensing issue, talk to me a
On 2013-01-08 14:05, Russel Winder wrote:
Looks like Apple are turning Snow Leopard 10.6 into their equivalent of
XP:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233244/OS_X_Snow_Leopard_shows_signs_of_becoming_Apple_s_XP
From the list on http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/ I cannot
upgrade to
On 2013-01-08 14:05, Russel Winder wrote:
Looks like Apple are turning Snow Leopard 10.6 into their equivalent of
XP:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233244/OS_X_Snow_Leopard_shows_signs_of_becoming_Apple_s_XP
From the list on http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/ I cannot
upgrade to
On 2013-01-08 13:52, Russel Winder wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 08:27 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Interesting, I was told not to try upgrading to Lion, but to stay with
Snow Leopard.
I just did.
MacBook2.1, Core 2 Duo, 2GB.
I think mine is from late 2006.
This has a 64-bit processor,
Pierre Rouleau, el 7 de January a las 23:17 me escribiste:
> I agree that feature releases mostly also contain bug fixes. I
> should have said, and I was thinking about proposing a process where
> minor releases that would only include bug fixes, and where major
> releases would mainly introduce n
Walter Bright, el 7 de January a las 13:27 me escribiste:
> On 1/7/2013 11:40 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >Andrei Alexandrescu, el 7 de January a las 08:31 me escribiste:
> >>One thing I want to do is enshrine a vetting mechanism that would
> >>allow Walter and myself to "pre-approve" enhancem
Walter Bright, el 8 de January a las 00:57 me escribiste:
> On 1/7/2013 8:17 PM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
> >And now I understand that D1 is no longer officially supported. If I
> >understand
> >properly D1 first release was 6 years ago. Lets assume I would have started
> >a
> >product development
Looks like Apple are turning Snow Leopard 10.6 into their equivalent of
XP:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233244/OS_X_Snow_Leopard_shows_signs_of_becoming_Apple_s_XP
From the list on http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/ I cannot
upgrade to Mountain Lion 10.8, and Apple provide no way
On 13-01-08 3:57 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
3. buy a support contract from Digital Mars or from any of the many
other competent people in the community to help you with D1
Good point. Probably the most important.
--
/Pierre Rouleau
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 08:27 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> I'm running 10.7 on my white MacBook from 2006.
Interesting, I was told not to try upgrading to Lion, but to stay with
Snow Leopard.
MacBook2.1, Core 2 Duo, 2GB.
This has a 64-bit processor, but 32-bit boot PROM, which means OS X will
o
On 2013-01-08 09:57, Walter Bright wrote:
The moment D1 was stabilized, work began on D2. It was always understood
that D2 was the future, and D1 was the stable version. Supporting it for
6 years is a pretty long time in the software business.
At some point, you'll need to make a decision:
1.
On 1/7/2013 8:17 PM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
And now I understand that D1 is no longer officially supported. If I understand
properly D1 first release was 6 years ago. Lets assume I would have started a
product development with it say 2 years ago because it was deemed relatively
stable then. And
On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 07:30:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-07 21:30, David Nadlinger wrote:
I don't know the current relative market share of the
different OS X
versions on top of my head either, but as we were getting a
couple of
bug reports from people who had tried to use
On 2013-01-07 21:30, David Nadlinger wrote:
I don't know the current relative market share of the different OS X
versions on top of my head either, but as we were getting a couple of
bug reports from people who had tried to use LDC 2 on 10.6 (before we
figured out that LLVM doesn't emulate TLS t
On 2013-01-07 21:17, Russel Winder wrote:
As far as I am aware white MacBooks cannot run 10.7 and 10.8, but are
stuck at 10.6
I'm running 10.7 on my white MacBook from 2006.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 05:29:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:18:11 -0800
Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/7/2013 3:19 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:08:58 +0100
> "deadalnix" wrote:
>>
>> However, it is just to discover that this do not work :
>>
>>
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:18:11 -0800
Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/7/2013 3:19 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:08:58 +0100
> > "deadalnix" wrote:
> >>
> >> However, it is just to discover that this do not work :
> >>
> >> struct Bar {}
> >> auto foo(ref Bar bar) {}
> >>
> >> fo
On Monday, 7 January 2013 at 01:29:02 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
Does anyone know of any mechanism for getting people to do what
needs to be done vs what they want to do that doesn't
involve paying them? The only long term successes I can point
to all involve companies.
You cannot achieve this
On 13-01-07 9:12 AM, Matthew Caron wrote:
On 01/07/2013 08:09 AM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
It would be nice to have bug fixes separated from new feature
introductions by having major and minor releases and branches for these
releases. Contributors of a release could backport bug fix in the
release
On 1/7/13 12:39 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:39:52 +0100
schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
On 2013-01-07 19:29, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
It's less structured than a roadmap but maybe that's what would
make it tenable!
It would be like a roadmap without the timeline. That's a lot
On 1/7/2013 3:19 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:08:58 +0100
"deadalnix" wrote:
However, it is just to discover that this do not work :
struct Bar {}
auto foo(ref Bar bar) {}
foo(Bar()); // Now this is an error !
I still have code broken all over the place.
IIRC, they tr
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:08:58 +0100
"deadalnix" wrote:
>
> However, it is just to discover that this do not work :
>
> struct Bar {}
> auto foo(ref Bar bar) {}
>
> foo(Bar()); // Now this is an error !
>
> I still have code broken all over the place.
IIRC, they tried to include this change in
On 1/7/2013 12:12 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-07 20:54, Walter Bright wrote:
It's pretty clear where we'll be going with this. We'll be abandoning OS
X versions older than 10.7.
Would it be a bad idea and do what the dynamic linker does in the druntime to
support TLS? This would make
On 1/7/2013 11:40 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 7 de January a las 08:31 me escribiste:
One thing I want to do is enshrine a vetting mechanism that would
allow Walter and myself to "pre-approve" enhancement requests.
Someone (including us) would submit an enhancement requ
On Monday, 7 January 2013 at 19:54:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/7/2013 4:41 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
Yes, it is not supported by linker and dyld versions shipping
with OS X 10.7.
Sorry, I wrote my last post in a hurry – I suppose it's clear
anyway, but that should have been »by the lin
Am Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:39:52 +0100
schrieb Jacob Carlborg :
> On 2013-01-07 19:29, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> > It's less structured than a roadmap but maybe that's what would
> > make it tenable!
>
> It would be like a roadmap without the timeline. That's a lot better
> than nothing.
>
a
On 1/7/2013 8:31 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter can write a roadmap, nobody will listen to him.
One thing that few people know is that Walter and I have tried to kindly
convince people to work on specific things we believed were important. Such
attempts have been largely unsuccessful.
T
On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 21:12 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-01-07 20:54, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> > It's pretty clear where we'll be going with this. We'll be abandoning OS
> > X versions older than 10.7.
>
> Would it be a bad idea and do what the dynamic linker does in the
> druntime to
On 2013-01-07 20:54, Walter Bright wrote:
It's pretty clear where we'll be going with this. We'll be abandoning OS
X versions older than 10.7.
Would it be a bad idea and do what the dynamic linker does in the
druntime to support TLS? This would make it work on Mac OS X 10.6.
I don't know e
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 7 de January a las 08:31 me escribiste:
> One thing I want to do is enshrine a vetting mechanism that would
> allow Walter and myself to "pre-approve" enhancement requests.
> Someone (including us) would submit an enhancement request to
> Bugzilla, and then Walter and I add
On 1/7/2013 4:41 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Monday, 7 January 2013 at 10:14:54 UTC, Robert Clipsham wrote:
Though I believe it will probably fail with older OS X versions which don't
have TLS support.
Yes, it is not supported by linker and dyld versions shipping with OS X 10.7.
This is also
On 2013-01-07 19:29, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
It's less structured than a roadmap but maybe that's what would make it
tenable!
It would be like a roadmap without the timeline. That's a lot better
than nothing.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 1/7/13 9:51 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 7 de January a las 08:31 me escribiste:
Why would I bother to do anything if is very likely that Walter don't want
to go that direction and all my work was done for nothing? Been there
before. Now I'm more cautious when selecti
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 7 de January a las 08:31 me escribiste:
> >Why would I bother to do anything if is very likely that Walter don't want
> >to go that direction and all my work was done for nothing? Been there
> >before. Now I'm more cautious when selecting my battles.
>
> One thing I want t
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 07:57:07 -0500
Matthew Caron wrote:
> On 01/05/2013 03:01 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:20:19 -0500
> > Matthew Caron wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/02/2013 04:18 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> Why would you need to? If your mail store is IMAP, just let it
> >
On Monday, January 07, 2013 08:09:01 Pierre Rouleau wrote:
> The worst part I see is that bug fixes and new feature introductions are
> lumped together inside releases. Combined with the fact that the
> development is not predictable means that if you develop products with D
> you have to keep upda
On 1/7/13 7:47 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I can write a roadmap, but then, nobody will listen to me.
Walter can write a roadmap, nobody will listen to him.
One thing that few people know is that Walter and I have tried to kindly
convince people to work on specific things we believed were im
Brad Roberts, el 6 de January a las 17:28 me escribiste:
> On 1/6/2013 4:25 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > I really hope at some point this will be addressed, and I think other
> > areas of the development process have been improved enough to think this
> > is a good moment to do so, but first m
On 01/07/2013 08:09 AM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
It would be nice to have bug fixes separated from new feature
introductions by having major and minor releases and branches for these
releases. Contributors of a release could backport bug fix in the
release they use if that was required by their pro
On 2013-01-07 09:04, Walter Bright wrote:
Please nail down what is necessary first. (BTW, I don't know how the
compiler can tell what image an address comes from. Remember, shared
libraries are loaded at runtime, not compile time.)
I'll try and do that.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 13-01-07 7:49 AM, Matthew Caron wrote:
On 01/06/2013 10:18 PM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
On 13-01-06 9:45 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, January 06, 2013 21:22:18 Pierre Rouleau wrote:
Is this something that the most influential people in the D project
want
to fix?
What exactly do you
On 01/05/2013 03:01 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:20:19 -0500
Matthew Caron wrote:
On 01/02/2013 04:18 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Why would you need to? If your mail store is IMAP, just let it
rebuild.
I don't store email on the server, I store it locally.
I gave that up
On 01/06/2013 10:18 PM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
On 13-01-06 9:45 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, January 06, 2013 21:22:18 Pierre Rouleau wrote:
Is this something that the most influential people in the D project want
to fix?
What exactly do you want fixed?
Really, I would like to be a
On Monday, 7 January 2013 at 10:14:54 UTC, Robert Clipsham wrote:
Though I believe it will probably fail with older OS X versions
which don't have TLS support.
Yes, it is not supported by linker and dyld versions shipping
with OS X 10.7. This is also the reason why LDC 2 only supports
OS X 10
On 2013-01-07 11:14, Robert Clipsham wrote:
Note that this no longer appears to be the case, at least with clang (OS
X 10.7.5):
Mac OS X Lion (10.7) got support for TLS. But that means that the whole
TLS needs to be redone in the compiler (output data to correct segments
and similar) and in
On Sunday, 6 January 2013 at 23:19:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
DMD implements its own TLS on OS X because the OS X C compiler
says "not implemented" when you try to create TLS variables. I
had no other option.
Note that this no longer appears to be the case, at least with
clang (OS X 10.7.5)
On 2013-01-07 01:36, Walter Bright wrote:
The thing is, roadmaps are a lot like planning for a war. The moment the
first shot is fired, all the plans go out the window. What we need to
get done next is a constantly evolving situation, based on:
On occasion developer are asking what they can wo
On 1/6/2013 11:57 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-07 01:25, Walter Bright wrote:
Sean would be the main one, but really anyone who is willing to get down
and dirty with threads and such can do it.
Martin Nowak has already started on this, it seems he know what he's doing:
https://github
On 1/6/2013 11:57 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-07 00:14, Walter Bright wrote:
Where it is not implemented is in druntime. The folks who work on
druntime are the ones that need convincing.
I didn't know you had stopped working on the runtime.
I now focus on the compiler, though I'll
On 1/6/2013 11:51 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-07 00:19, Walter Bright wrote:
I have fixed every single PIC implementation compiler problem that has
been brought to my attention. If there are others, I am not aware of
them. Please let me know the bugzilla issue numbers for any I have mi
On 2013-01-07 01:25, Walter Bright wrote:
Sean would be the main one, but really anyone who is willing to get down
and dirty with threads and such can do it.
Martin Nowak has already started on this, it seems he know what he's doing:
https://github.com/dawgfoto/druntime/tree/SharedRuntime
--
On 2013-01-07 00:14, Walter Bright wrote:
Where it is not implemented is in druntime. The folks who work on
druntime are the ones that need convincing.
I didn't know you had stopped working on the runtime.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 11:42:53 -0500
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> Like browsers, for instance. When Microsoft had their browser merely
> uninstallable...
Erm... s/uninstallable/non-uninstallable/ (unless I'm remembering
wrong)
On 2013-01-07 00:19, Walter Bright wrote:
I have fixed every single PIC implementation compiler problem that has
been brought to my attention. If there are others, I am not aware of
them. Please let me know the bugzilla issue numbers for any I have missed.
I know you have. The problem is that
On 1/6/2013 7:30 PM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
Understood, that's pretty much always the case for any programming language.
Now, for someone from the outside, how would someone know what are the latest
features?
In the changelog, click on New/Changed Features.
Would it be possible to identify the
On 13-01-06 9:41 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/6/2013 6:15 PM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
So, given that enhancements are identified in Bugzilla, is there a review
process? Are ticket priorities and vote used? Who decides what is
the priority
of an enhancement? Who assigns them?
Pretty much any
On 13-01-06 9:35 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, January 06, 2013 21:15:43 Pierre Rouleau wrote:
So, given that enhancements are identified in Bugzilla, is there a
review process? Are ticket priorities and vote used? Who decides what
is the priority of an enhancement? Who assigns them
On 13-01-06 9:45 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, January 06, 2013 21:22:18 Pierre Rouleau wrote:
Is this something that the most influential people in the D project want
to fix?
What exactly do you want fixed?
Really, I would like to be able to start using D at work. And be in a
posi
On Sunday, January 06, 2013 21:22:18 Pierre Rouleau wrote:
> Is this something that the most influential people in the D project want
> to fix?
What exactly do you want fixed? Sure, it would be great if we could know when
certain things are going to be implemented or fixed, but without people to
On 1/6/2013 6:15 PM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
So, given that enhancements are identified in Bugzilla, is there a review
process? Are ticket priorities and vote used? Who decides what is the priority
of an enhancement? Who assigns them?
Pretty much anyone who wants to take one of them on does s
On Sunday, January 06, 2013 21:15:43 Pierre Rouleau wrote:
> So, given that enhancements are identified in Bugzilla, is there a
> review process? Are ticket priorities and vote used? Who decides what
> is the priority of an enhancement? Who assigns them?
There's pretty much never any assigning
On 13-01-06 8:41 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, January 06, 2013 17:28:57 Brad Roberts wrote:
Does anyone know of any mechanism for getting people to do what needs to be
done vs what they want to do that doesn't involve paying them? The only
long term successes I can point to all involv
On 13-01-06 7:36 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
If this list already contains all (does it?) of what is currently
identified
then is there some criteria one can use to try to infer what will be
implemented
in the next release? Or is it just "first come first
Walter Bright, el 6 de January a las 16:36 me escribiste:
> On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
> >If this list already contains all (does it?) of what is currently identified
> >then is there some criteria one can use to try to infer what will be
> >implemented
> >in the next release? Or
1 - 100 of 343 matches
Mail list logo
