Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 05/11/2013 22:08, 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 Regarding the new eponymous template syntax, has this change been updated in the language spec? Seems not. Does this syntax support template constraints? According to the compiler, seems not, but this should be in the spec.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 2013-11-05 23:08, 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 The version says DMD64 D Compiler v2.064 instead of DMD64 D Compiler v2.064.2. The Mac OS X installer is an old version. It's installs the correct version of the compiler but the text in the installer is outdated. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064.2
El 11/11/13 19:00, Jacob Carlborg ha escrit: The version says DMD64 D Compiler v2.064 instead of DMD64 D Compiler v2.064.2. Same on Linux. On v2.064.2: ... DMD64 D Compiler v2.064 ... On v2.063.2: ... DMD64 D Compiler v2.063.2 ... -- Jordi Sayol
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11 Nov 2013 20:32, Jordi Sayol g.sa...@yahoo.es wrote: El 11/11/13 19:00, Jacob Carlborg ha escrit: The version says DMD64 D Compiler v2.064 instead of DMD64 D Compiler v2.064.2. Walter said the version number was not updated before compile, sounded like he preferred not to have to recompile everything just for the version number.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 16:25:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote: On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote: how do make that comiler work? [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 2013 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs (user32) windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit This never worked automatically before so I don't know how this could suddenly be a disaster. In this release the installer makes an attempt to detect your VC++ and SDK installation and fix up sc.ini to point to them. It's brand new and only a few people responded to my call for help testing it. Post your sc.ini and the paths to your Windows 8.1 SDK and Visual C++ 2013 installation. i have tested windows 8.1/vc 2013/sdk 8.1, here are my paths: mspdb120 path: --- %VCINSTALLDIR%\..\VC\bin --- (full: C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC\bin) libs path: --- %WindowsSdkDir%\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64 --- (full: C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows Kits\8.1\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64) adding this stuff to sc.ini allows to build with dmd 2.064.2 with -m64
Re: dmd 2.064.2
Can you clarify exactly which version of Visual Studio 2013 you are using? Can you also confirm that you can compile and link a C++ console app using your current installation of vs2013?
Re: dmd 2.064.2
BTW, I have noticed that this version was compiled without -D=PULL93 so transition switch list again only has `tls`. Is there any specific reason to remove this switch after actual deprecation? It still can be very useful for porting D1 to D2 :)
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 17:12:07 UTC, tester wrote: nothing worked.. after a reboot i reinstalled with the installer and used the (bug) appended sc.ini. didn't work. i then replaced all occurences of %VCINSTALLDIR% and %WindowsSdkDir% with the actual path such as C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC and it wouldn't work. i worked with these modifications when i started as administrator. It works under administrator? You probably got something virtualized. Can you find the dmd folder in VirtualStore in your profile?
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/7/13, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote: The changelog is missing issue 10700. I though that part was automatically generated. The list of issues fixed were generated on October 20th, and that bug was not marked as fixed in bugzilla at the time. There's likely a set of additional bugs which are not listed in the changelog, but it's hard to both autogenerate these and then have to manually track which bugs were merged into the 2.064 branch. Everything is done ad-hoc, so you'll end up with this sort of problem.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/05/2013 11:08 PM, 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 Would you mind to update the rpms with a fixed build? http://forum.dlang.org/post/527c3ed0.8030...@dawg.eu
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 2013-11-08 19:37, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: The list of issues fixed were generated on October 20th, and that bug was not marked as fixed in bugzilla at the time. There's likely a set of additional bugs which are not listed in the changelog, but it's hard to both autogenerate these and then have to manually track which bugs were merged into the 2.064 branch. Everything is done ad-hoc, so you'll end up with this sort of problem. Aha, I see. The documentation wasn't merged on October 20th so the issue hadn't got closed. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 2013-11-08 14:17, Dicebot wrote: BTW, I have noticed that this version was compiled without -D=PULL93 so transition switch list again only has `tls`. Is there any specific reason to remove this switch after actual deprecation? It still can be very useful for porting D1 to D2 :) Yeah, I still have DWT Mac OS X left to port. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064.2
how do make that comiler work? [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 2013 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs (user32) windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote: how do make that comiler work? [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 2013 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs (user32) windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit if it compiles with -m32 and fails with -m64 then i think you need manually edit ur sc.ini to add correct paths for windows sdk/kits and visual studio.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
i did that, but it still will not work On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 10:12:29 UTC, evilrat wrote: On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote: how do make that comiler work? [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 2013 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs (user32) windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit if it compiles with -m32 and fails with -m64 then i think you need manually edit ur sc.ini to add correct paths for windows sdk/kits and visual studio.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
does not work with the installer either. that really sucks On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 10:19:03 UTC, tester wrote: i did that, but it still will not work On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 10:12:29 UTC, evilrat wrote: On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote: how do make that comiler work? [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 2013 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs (user32) windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit if it compiles with -m32 and fails with -m64 then i think you need manually edit ur sc.ini to add correct paths for windows sdk/kits and visual studio.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 11:42:25 UTC, tester wrote: does not work with the installer either. that really sucks well, this is because most people stick with linux, and i think there few to noone win8 users. so here is the result ...
Re: dmd 2.064.2
yes, that may be true and i understand that there are still compiler errors. but the most primitive things that are advertised should work. something like this would get people fired in our company - and rightly so. On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 12:06:51 UTC, evilrat wrote: On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 11:42:25 UTC, tester wrote: does not work with the installer either. that really sucks well, this is because most people stick with linux, and i think there few to noone win8 users. so here is the result ...
Re: dmd 2.064.2
El 06/11/13 11:47, Jordi Sayol ha escrit: El 06/11/13 10:55, Jordi Sayol ha escrit: El 05/11/13 23:46, Walter Bright ha escrit: On 11/5/2013 2:41 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: Figured it out. You used linux/win/installer.nsi. I have no idea why that exists and what it is for. It's so you can build the windows installer from a Linux box. I presumed it was the same. It is not the same. The linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi is a fork of windows/dinstaller.nsi. Mainly differs as it includes everything on itself, removing the need to download dmd/dmc/libcurl every time dmd is installed. There are some other minor changes. Errata: s:linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi:linux/win/installer.nsi: BTW. Changes on this fork: - Built in all the needed components. No downloads during installation. - Checks if another dmd version is already installed, and force to uninstall it before proceed. If uninstaller fails, installation can be forced by the command dmd-2.064.2.exe /f. - Changes on the Windows system registry fields and values. - Remove the dmd version 1. - Not allowed to go ahead if nothing is selected. - Changed default path to C:\dmd. If previous dmd installation is set to another path, installer uses it instead the default. It is prepared to be built by the linux/dmd_win.sh, which is included on linux/build_all.sh as well. Add to these changes: - Check if a dmd installer instance is already running (only one at a time allowed). - When uninstalling, keeps root dmd folder if some file/folder added by the user remains there, but not if in dm nor dmd2 folders. -- Jordi Sayol
Re: dmd 2.064.2
Visual studio doesn't run on Linux, there are very many windows users 64bit was first supported on Linux though. submit a patch for the installer, we all have other jobs. On 7 Nov 2013 14:10, evilrat evilrat...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 11:42:25 UTC, tester wrote: does not work with the installer either. that really sucks well, this is because most people stick with linux, and i think there few to noone win8 users. so here is the result ...
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/7/2013 12:58 AM, tester wrote: how do make that comiler work? [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 2013 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs (user32) windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit There's an attachment to https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11457 with an sc.ini, does that one work for you?
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote: how do make that comiler work? [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 2013 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs (user32) windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit This never worked automatically before so I don't know how this could suddenly be a disaster. In this release the installer makes an attempt to detect your VC++ and SDK installation and fix up sc.ini to point to them. It's brand new and only a few people responded to my call for help testing it. Post your sc.ini and the paths to your Windows 8.1 SDK and Visual C++ 2013 installation.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 16:25:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote: On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote: how do make that comiler work? [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 2013 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs (user32) windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit This never worked automatically before so I don't know how this could suddenly be a disaster. In this release the installer makes an attempt to detect your VC++ and SDK installation and fix up sc.ini to point to them. It's brand new and only a few people responded to my call for help testing it. Post your sc.ini and the paths to your Windows 8.1 SDK and Visual C++ 2013 installation. I run 32bit win7 with VS2013 so I normally do not test cross-compiling with -m64. The installer correctly found my installation directories: VCINSTALLDIR=C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC\ WindowsSdkDir=C:\Program Files\Windows Kits\8.1\ But I needed to add the follwing to PATH(in order to find mspdb120.dll) %VCINSTALLDIR%\bin And the following to LIB, in order to find shell32.lib LIB=%LIB%;%WindowsSdkDir%\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64 Hope it helps.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
yes i tried that. i uninstalled d selveral times and reinstalled. itried it with the zip file. nothing worked.. after a reboot i reinstalled with the installer and used the (bug) appended sc.ini. didn't work. i then replaced all occurences of %VCINSTALLDIR% and %WindowsSdkDir% with the actual path such as C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC and it wouldn't work. i worked with these modifications when i started as administrator. this is frustrating, since i love to install a new release an do something with it out of the box. never the less i love d and i hope all of hard working guys are not to pis... with my postings, since you all do a great job. thanks again. On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 16:19:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/7/2013 12:58 AM, tester wrote: how do make that comiler work? [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 2013 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs (user32) windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit There's an attachment to https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11457 with an sc.ini, does that one work for you?
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/7/2013 9:12 AM, tester wrote: i uninstalled d selveral times and reinstalled. itried it with the zip file. nothing worked.. after a reboot i reinstalled with the installer and used the (bug) appended sc.ini. didn't work. i then replaced all occurences of %VCINSTALLDIR% and %WindowsSdkDir% with the actual path such as C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC and it wouldn't work. i worked with these modifications when i started as administrator. What is the exact error you are getting? And did it work with 2.063?
Re: dmd 2.064.2
1.) it didn't find user32 2.) it worked with 2063 perfectly - used the zip files download, adaped the ini. that was under 8.0/visual 2012. On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 17:47:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/7/2013 9:12 AM, tester wrote: i uninstalled d selveral times and reinstalled. itried it with the zip file. nothing worked.. after a reboot i reinstalled with the installer and used the (bug) appended sc.ini. didn't work. i then replaced all occurences of %VCINSTALLDIR% and %WindowsSdkDir% with the actual path such as C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC and it wouldn't work. i worked with these modifications when i started as administrator. What is the exact error you are getting? And did it work with 2.063?
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/7/2013 10:04 AM, tester wrote: 1.) it didn't find user32 Please, I need to know exactly what happened. Run it from the command line, cutpaste the screen output. 2.) it worked with 2063 perfectly - used the zip files download, adaped the ini. that was under 8.0/visual 2012. On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 17:47:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/7/2013 9:12 AM, tester wrote: i uninstalled d selveral times and reinstalled. itried it with the zip file. nothing worked.. after a reboot i reinstalled with the installer and used the (bug) appended sc.ini. didn't work. i then replaced all occurences of %VCINSTALLDIR% and %WindowsSdkDir% with the actual path such as C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC and it wouldn't work. i worked with these modifications when i started as administrator. What is the exact error you are getting? And did it work with 2.063?
Re: dmd 2.064.2
Do you have this line in your sc.ini file? LIB=%LIB%;%WindowsSdkDir%\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64 If you do a file search of C:\Program Files (x86) for User32.lib where do you find them?
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 01:12:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: I had assumed that there was a 2.063.1 prior to 2.063.2 but clearly wasn't paying enough attention. - Jonathan M Davis Found the explanation: http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dmd-internals/2013-June/006569.html The v2.063 was an aborted 'release'. 2.063.1 is what was released. (The compiler libraries are unchanged, what happened was the documentation was fixed.)
Re: dmd 2.064.2
yes, except hat i replaced %WindowsSdkDir% with the path to that directory On Friday, 8 November 2013 at 02:45:45 UTC, Nicholas Londey wrote: Do you have this line in your sc.ini file? LIB=%LIB%;%WindowsSdkDir%\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64 If you do a file search of C:\Program Files (x86) for User32.lib where do you find them?
Re: dmd 2.064.2
El 05/11/13 23:46, Walter Bright ha escrit: On 11/5/2013 2:41 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: Figured it out. You used linux/win/installer.nsi. I have no idea why that exists and what it is for. It's so you can build the windows installer from a Linux box. I presumed it was the same. It is not the same. The linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi is a fork of windows/dinstaller.nsi. Mainly differs as it includes everything on itself, removing the need to download dmd/dmc/libcurl every time dmd is installed. There are some other minor changes. -- Jordi Sayol
Re: dmd 2.064.2
El 06/11/13 10:55, Jordi Sayol ha escrit: El 05/11/13 23:46, Walter Bright ha escrit: On 11/5/2013 2:41 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: Figured it out. You used linux/win/installer.nsi. I have no idea why that exists and what it is for. It's so you can build the windows installer from a Linux box. I presumed it was the same. It is not the same. The linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi is a fork of windows/dinstaller.nsi. Mainly differs as it includes everything on itself, removing the need to download dmd/dmc/libcurl every time dmd is installed. There are some other minor changes. Errata: s:linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi:linux/win/installer.nsi: BTW. Changes on this fork: - Built in all the needed components. No downloads during installation. - Checks if another dmd version is already installed, and force to uninstall it before proceed. If uninstaller fails, installation can be forced by the command dmd-2.064.2.exe /f. - Changes on the Windows system registry fields and values. - Remove the dmd version 1. - Not allowed to go ahead if nothing is selected. - Changed default path to C:\dmd. If previous dmd installation is set to another path, installer uses it instead the default. It is prepared to be built by the linux/dmd_win.sh, which is included on linux/build_all.sh as well. -- Jordi Sayol
Re: dmd 2.064.2
Arch Linux package has been updated. Was awaiting for some of good stuff from this release for a long time :) There are two extremely disappointing things though: 1) We still can't get versioning right. Walter has treated release candidate as a release which is why we have 2.064.2 right now as first actual release. This is not intended approach. 2) -allinst switch introduced as a workaround for incomplete implementation of new template instance emitting scheme. Now we have essentially 3 different symbol emitting strategies, all of them are legal, none is documented/guaranteed and those may work in some situations but fail in others (experiments, yay!) This is exactly the opposite of what I have meant when speaking that symbol emitting are needs more attention.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
El 05/11/13 23:08, Walter Bright ha escrit: 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 Linux libraries libphobos2.so.0.64.0 still include libcurl versioned symbols. These libraries can only be used on Linux systems based on Debian. -- Jordi Sayol
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 12:02:48 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote: Release notes? http://dlang.org/changelog
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 12:44:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 12:02:48 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
Release notes?
http://dlang.org/changelog
There is a a bug in the new eponymous syntax example in the
changelog:
template isIntOrFloat(T)
{
static if (is(T == int) || is(T == float))
enum isIntOrFloat = true;
else
enum isIntOrFloat = true; // BUG
}
I am just learning D but those change-logs are awesome! Don't
think I ever seen anything like this.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
Dicebot, el 6 de November a las 12:43 me escribiste: Arch Linux package has been updated. Was awaiting for some of good stuff from this release for a long time :) There are two extremely disappointing things though: 1) We still can't get versioning right. Walter has treated release candidate as a release which is why we have 2.064.2 right now as first actual release. This is not intended approach. Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1. Was that intended or just an error? -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- DETIENEN A PADRE, MADRE, TIOS Y ABUELOS: TODOS DEPRAVADOS -- Crónica TV
Re: dmd 2.064.2
El 05/11/13 23:08, Walter Bright ha escrit: 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 In dmd.2.064.2.zip, src/VERSION contains 2.064. Should be 2.064.2 -- Jordi Sayol
Re: dmd 2.064.2
06-Nov-2013 02:08, Walter Bright пишет: 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 Bah... did I miss 2.064 and 2.064.1 ? :) As others noted - please do not use patch level before the release has actually happened. All in all there are: betas RCs and release itself with subsequent patch-versions All should have their own numbers and never intersect or affect one another. -- Dmitry Olshansky
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/6/13, Szymon Gatner noem...@gmail.com wrote: There is a a bug in the new eponymous syntax example in the changelog This was fixed, the website hasn't been updated.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 04:11:52 UTC, Manu wrote: On 6 November 2013 09:54, Brad Anderson e...@gnuk.net wrote: On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 23:51:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/5/2013 2:52 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin to pull them in sync. The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the one used in the past. I don't see why the file would need to differ between a Windows and Linux box. For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows version and uploaded it. Perfect. Thank you. Seems to work on my system. Notices: * no 64bit curl.lib :( Sorry. Couldn't find the time. The installer can be updated independently of dmd releases to have it but I'm not sure how willing Walter will be to do a mid-release update. * gcstub64, phobos64 still have '64' in the name :( Oh well, there's always next time...
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:24:03 UTC, Orvid King wrote: On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, 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 Dear world: DO NOT use the windows installer if you have ANYTHING other than the default installed files in your previous install folder, because it will delete EVERYTHING. (and this isn't an understatement, my C:/D folder is now entirely empty but for a single git index which was locked by my IDE), this means I have now lost my local checkouts of the D repos, my git-head dmd install location, as well as my auto-build-install-test scripts, and my local copy of my JSON work. Thankfully my JSON work wasn't even the latest copy anyways. Deleting everything IS NOT uninstalling. The Windows installer has been replaced with the correct version which does not do this.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
I'm confused. The changelog pages links to http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip, while the download page links to http://downloads.dlang.org/releases/2013/dmd.2.064.2.zip. Which is the correct file/version? Also, at least on OS X (with both versions) I get a link error in the wrap examples: $ rdmd main.d Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: _D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFZv1302__T7forwardS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFZv8_param_1iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657! 475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFZv8_param_2iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFZv8_param_3iZ8__T3fwdZ3fwdMFNbNdNfZi, referenced from: _D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFZv in main.o _D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFZv1732__T7forwardS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFZv8_param_0iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657! 475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFZv8_param_1iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFZv8_param_2iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c65212854617! 26765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFZv8_param_3iZ8__T3fwdZ3fwdMFNbNdNfZi ... etc.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/6/2013 5:16 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote: In dmd.2.064.2.zip, src/VERSION contains 2.064. Should be 2.064.2 I deliberately didn't do that because it would have required rebuilding all the binaries just for that.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1. Was that intended or just an error? It was intended. I felt that 2.064 = 2.064.1 would have been confusing, hence 2.064 = 2.064.2
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/6/2013 11:22 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I confirm that. Walter, could this have something to do with the new approach to compiling templates? It might. You can confirm by seeing if it works with -allinst switch.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/6/13 11:56 AM, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/6/2013 11:22 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: I confirm that. Walter, could this have something to do with the new approach to compiling templates? It might. You can confirm by seeing if it works with -allinst switch. I confirm it works when compiled with -allinst. Andrei
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 19:57:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1. Was that intended or just an error? It was intended. I felt that 2.064 = 2.064.1 would have been confusing, hence 2.064 = 2.064.2 But were there 2.064 and 2.064.1 releases? If I'm not mistaken the last release was 2.063.2 (at least judging by the website), next major release should be 2.064, not 2.064.1 or 2.064.2 (those are patch releases, not major ones). If 2.064.1 was a RC then it was badly named. As IMHO RC versions must be marked with rc, as betas are marked with b flag. Something like 2.064-rc.1, 2.064-rc.2, ... 2.064 (stable/major release), 2.064.1 (patch release), ... This (-rc.xx) is how RC versions should be marked as per SEMVER standard (http://semver.org), although I know that D doesn't follow semantic versioning as defined in that standard. Other than this thing with versioning I must say that I'm very pleased with changes in this version, so congrats to all people involved! :)
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 20:06:54 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 11/6/13 11:56 AM, Walter Bright wrote: It might. You can confirm by seeing if it works with -allinst switch. I confirm it works when compiled with -allinst. Is that switch new? It is not documented in the changelog.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
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
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:27:01 +, 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
Re: dmd 2.064.2
Is it possible to build something like wrap, so that it can be given a wrapping class instead of a wrapping interface? I was trying to build something very similar to wrap, and at first glance it seems like wrap might suit me, except that I wanted to wrap the wolf in the class Sheeps clothes, not in an ISheep. (typecons.d(2864): Error: class std.typecons.wrap!(B).wrap!(A).Impl base type must be interface, not main.B)
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:37:56 +, Jonathan Crapuchettes wrote: On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:27:01 +, 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 Disregard the last post. The issue still exists; I was just looking at the wrong file.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 20:11:13 UTC, Aleksandar Ruzicic wrote: versions must be marked with rc, as betas are marked with b flag. Something like 2.064-rc.1, 2.064-rc.2, ... 2.064 (stable/major release), 2.064.1 (patch release), ... This (-rc.xx) is how RC versions should be marked as per SEMVER standard (http://semver.org), although I know that D doesn't follow semantic versioning as defined in that standard. The D version numbers fail requirement 2 of semantic versioning: 2. A normal version number MUST take the form X.Y.Z where X, Y, and Z are non-negative integers, and MUST NOT contain leading zeroes. I know that was discussed somewhere, but I don't know/recall why there is a leading zero in the minor version number.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 2013-11-06 20:57, Walter Bright wrote: It was intended. I felt that 2.064 = 2.064.1 would have been confusing, hence 2.064 = 2.064.2 That's what's happening if you start to add new digits. The first release should have possibly been 2.064.0. BTW, there was a 2.063.1, if I recall correctly. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 20:46:23 UTC, Luís Marques wrote: Is it possible to build something like wrap, so that it can be given a wrapping class instead of a wrapping interface? I was trying to build something very similar to wrap, and at first glance it seems like wrap might suit me, except that I wanted to wrap the wolf in the class Sheeps clothes, not in an ISheep. (typecons.d(2864): Error: class std.typecons.wrap!(B).wrap!(A).Impl base type must be interface, not main.B) classes have implementations and state you need to initialize. It's possible to implement that in wrap but more problematic.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, 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 Good job everyone! DPaste is already using it
Re: dmd 2.064.2
Walter Bright, el 6 de November a las 12:01 me escribiste: On 11/6/2013 5:16 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote: In dmd.2.064.2.zip, src/VERSION contains 2.064. Should be 2.064.2 I deliberately didn't do that because it would have required rebuilding all the binaries just for that. And that's bad because ? -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- The Guinness Book of Records holds the record for being the most stolen book in public libraries
Re: dmd 2.064.2
Walter Bright, el 6 de November a las 11:57 me escribiste: On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1. Was that intended or just an error? It was intended. I felt that 2.064 = 2.064.1 would have been confusing, hence 2.064 = 2.064.2 That's funny, I find it very confusing to jump from 2.064 to 2.064.2. 2.064 is implied to be 2.064.0, as version 1 is implied to be 1.0 (and as a floating point number 1 is 1.0, not 1.1). Every other project out there uses this convention. So I wonder why do you find 2.064 = 2.064.1 confusing. Looking at previous versions I just noticed you did the same with 2.063, I didn't notice then. But please, could you consider changing that naming scheme and using 2.0XX.1 as the 1st patchlevel (see the relation? :). Thanks. And I would also want to thanks for another great release, with a great changelog despite the protests! :D -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- A lo que Peperino respondióles: aquel que tenga sabañones que se los moje, aquel que padece calvicie no padece un osito, no es bueno comer lechón en día de gastritis, no mezcleis el vino con la sandía, sacad la basura después de las ocho, en caso de emergencia rompa el vidrio con el martillo, a cien metros desvio por Pavón. -- Peperino Pómoro
Re: dmd 2.064.2
Jacob Carlborg, el 6 de November a las 22:06 me escribiste: On 2013-11-06 20:57, Walter Bright wrote: It was intended. I felt that 2.064 = 2.064.1 would have been confusing, hence 2.064 = 2.064.2 That's what's happening if you start to add new digits. The first release should have possibly been 2.064.0. BTW, there was a 2.063.1, if I recall correctly. I also have the impression I saw a 2.063.1. There are certainly posts in the devel list about that version, there is none with that version in the download directory: http://downloads.dlang.org/releases/2013/ Maybe the discussion was about 2.063.1 but then Walter name it 2.063.2, or maybe it was removed from the web server? -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- Software is like sex: it's better when it's free. -- Linus Torvalds
Re: dmd 2.064.2
, el 6 de November a las 21:53 me escribiste: On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 20:11:13 UTC, Aleksandar Ruzicic wrote: versions must be marked with rc, as betas are marked with b flag. Something like 2.064-rc.1, 2.064-rc.2, ... 2.064 (stable/major release), 2.064.1 (patch release), ... This (-rc.xx) is how RC versions should be marked as per SEMVER standard (http://semver.org), although I know that D doesn't follow semantic versioning as defined in that standard. The D version numbers fail requirement 2 of semantic versioning: 2. A normal version number MUST take the form X.Y.Z where X, Y, and Z are non-negative integers, and MUST NOT contain leading zeroes. I know that was discussed somewhere, but I don't know/recall why there is a leading zero in the minor version number. I think because back in the stone age, it was hard to sort versions like this: 1.5 and 1.15. Lexicographically speaking 1.5 1.15. I don't think there is any reason now for leading zero, just historical reasons. It would be awesome to get DMD follow semantic versioning as much as possible. Even when is not really a library, I guess the language specification can be taken as the API. The only problem is from time to time some tiny non backwards compatible changes are made and I don't anyone would like to bump the major version because of that. But I think an exception could be made for that, and I think those changes appear less and less frequently, so it shouldn't be a big issue. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- All men are born equal But quite a few get over it
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Thursday, November 07, 2013 00:11:37 Leandro Lucarella wrote: Walter Bright, el 6 de November a las 11:57 me escribiste: On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1. Was that intended or just an error? It was intended. I felt that 2.064 = 2.064.1 would have been confusing, hence 2.064 = 2.064.2 That's funny, I find it very confusing to jump from 2.064 to 2.064.2. 2.064 is implied to be 2.064.0, as version 1 is implied to be 1.0 (and as a floating point number 1 is 1.0, not 1.1). Every other project out there uses this convention. So I wonder why do you find 2.064 = 2.064.1 confusing. Yeah. Going from 2.064 or 2.064.0 to 2.064.1 would be pretty standard. Jumping straight from 2.064 to 2.064.2 is what's likely to confuse most people. Looking at previous versions I just noticed you did the same with 2.063, I didn't notice then. But please, could you consider changing that naming scheme and using 2.0XX.1 as the 1st patchlevel (see the relation? I had assumed that there was a 2.063.1 prior to 2.063.2 but clearly wasn't paying enough attention. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/6/2013 3:43 PM, nazriel wrote: Good job everyone! DPaste is already using it Nice!
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/6/2013 3:20 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: Walter Bright, el 6 de November a las 12:01 me escribiste: On 11/6/2013 5:16 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote: In dmd.2.064.2.zip, src/VERSION contains 2.064. Should be 2.064.2 I deliberately didn't do that because it would have required rebuilding all the binaries just for that. And that's bad because ? Time, and then wondering what is different when it isn't different
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 2013-11-05 23:08, 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 The changelog is missing issue 10700. I though that part was automatically generated. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:10:53 UTC, Joshua Niehus wrote: On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Ok, this is it: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg Not found :( nvm, just started working... apologies
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Ok, this is it: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg Not found :( http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2 still open :(
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/5/2013 2:10 PM, Joshua Niehus wrote: On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Ok, this is it: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg Not found :( It's uploading as I type this. Should be up in a minute or two. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2 still open :( Sorry. There are a lot still open - but a vast number were fixed.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, 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 Dear world: DO NOT use the windows installer if you have ANYTHING other than the default installed files in your previous install folder, because it will delete EVERYTHING. (and this isn't an understatement, my C:/D folder is now entirely empty but for a single git index which was locked by my IDE), this means I have now lost my local checkouts of the D repos, my git-head dmd install location, as well as my auto-build-install-test scripts, and my local copy of my JSON work. Thankfully my JSON work wasn't even the latest copy anyways. Deleting everything IS NOT uninstalling.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe What's up with the Windows installer? It appears to be using an old version without all the improvements I've been making but with some new changes added.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/5/2013 2:21 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: What's up with the Windows installer? It appears to be using an old version without all the improvements I've been making but with some new changes added. It should be using the one on the 2.064 branch on github. Can you check that?
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:36:43 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote: On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:24:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/5/2013 2:21 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: What's up with the Windows installer? It appears to be using an old version without all the improvements I've been making but with some new changes added. It should be using the one on the 2.064 branch on github. Can you check that? [2.064 branch] is 2 commits ahead and 9 commits behind master So it's definitely missing some stuff in the branch itself but what you put up is also definitely not what is in the 2.064 branch either. There should be several sections: - D2 - cURL Support - Detect MSVC - Add to PATH - D1 - Add to PATH - dmc - Add to PATH - Start Menu Shortcuts - Visual D But in the one you put up there is just: - dmd - cURL support - Add to PATH - dmc - Add to PATH - Start menu items Normally it's an internet installer too but isn't this time (not a bad thing but not normal either). It also uninstalls DMD before it installs which the current installer doesn't do. I have no idea where you got this version. Figured it out. You used linux/win/installer.nsi. I have no idea why that exists and what it is for. Jordi has been making a lot of changes to it but I have no idea what the purpose of it is. Maybe he should start doing pull requests like everyone else so people know what's going on with the repo.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/5/2013 2:41 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: Figured it out. You used linux/win/installer.nsi. I have no idea why that exists and what it is for. It's so you can build the windows installer from a Linux box. I presumed it was the same. Maybe he should start doing pull requests like everyone else so people know what's going on with the repo. It *is* in the repo. That's where I got it. Please issue a pull request to update it.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:46:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/5/2013 2:41 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: Figured it out. You used linux/win/installer.nsi. I have no idea why that exists and what it is for. It's so you can build the windows installer from a Linux box. I presumed it was the same. Maybe he should start doing pull requests like everyone else so people know what's going on with the repo. It *is* in the repo. That's where I got it. I know, what I mean is that Jordi pushes directly to D-Programming-Language when he works so his changes are done largely under the radar. Please issue a pull request to update it. He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin to pull them in sync. The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the one used in the past. I don't see why the file would need to differ between a Windows and Linux box.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 23:51:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/5/2013 2:52 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin to pull them in sync. The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the one used in the past. I don't see why the file would need to differ between a Windows and Linux box. For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows version and uploaded it. Perfect. Thank you.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 11/5/2013 2:52 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin to pull them in sync. The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the one used in the past. I don't see why the file would need to differ between a Windows and Linux box. For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows version and uploaded it.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, 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 How come that we are at 2.064.2 ? Aren't the last number supposed to represent patches after release ? Anyway I want to attract your attention on http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11447 . This one is a show stopper for SDC.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, 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 haha, using D as the development of more and more, sent a congratulatory message from China, congratulations dmd 2.064.2 released! There is another suggestion, when you can join arm compiler, and now mobile development too fire!
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 6 November 2013 09:54, Brad Anderson e...@gnuk.net wrote: On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 23:51:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/5/2013 2:52 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin to pull them in sync. The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the one used in the past. I don't see why the file would need to differ between a Windows and Linux box. For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows version and uploaded it. Perfect. Thank you. Seems to work on my system. Notices: * no 64bit curl.lib :( * gcstub64, phobos64 still have '64' in the name :( Oh well, there's always next time...
Re: dmd 2.064.2
Btw. http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd-2.064.2.exe http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd.2.064.2.zip http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd.2.064.2.dmg http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb One can use my mirror. c:
Re: dmd 2.064.2
Am Tue, 05 Nov 2013 23:24:02 +0100 schrieb Orvid King blah38...@gmail.com: On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, 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 Dear world: DO NOT use the windows installer if you have ANYTHING other than the default installed files in your previous install folder, because it will delete EVERYTHING. (and this isn't an understatement, my C:/D folder is now entirely empty but for a single git index which was locked by my IDE), this means I have now lost my local checkouts of the D repos, my git-head dmd install location, as well as my auto-build-install-test scripts, and my local copy of my JSON work. Thankfully my JSON work wasn't even the latest copy anyways. Deleting everything IS NOT uninstalling. Stunned silence... You seem to have gotten away with only few losses. Thanks for sharing. I can only imagine what that would have done to someone who has no backups or online repositories for their code. I have to say though that I'm sometimes annoyed by accurate uninstallers that keep a directory because of a log file or modified configuration. I doesn't hurt to ask for a recursive deletion of the install directory. -- Marco
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Tuesday, November 05, 2013 23:24:02 Orvid King wrote: On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, 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 Dear world: DO NOT use the windows installer if you have ANYTHING other than the default installed files in your previous install folder, because it will delete EVERYTHING. (and this isn't an understatement, my C:/D folder is now entirely empty but for a single git index which was locked by my IDE), this means I have now lost my local checkouts of the D repos, my git-head dmd install location, as well as my auto-build-install-test scripts, and my local copy of my JSON work. Thankfully my JSON work wasn't even the latest copy anyways. Deleting everything IS NOT uninstalling. Please ile a bug report: http://d.puremagic.com/issues - Jonathan M Davis
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 04:11:52 UTC, Manu wrote: On 6 November 2013 09:54, Brad Anderson e...@gnuk.net wrote: On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 23:51:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/5/2013 2:52 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin to pull them in sync. The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the one used in the past. I don't see why the file would need to differ between a Windows and Linux box. For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows version and uploaded it. Perfect. Thank you. Seems to work on my system. Notices: * no 64bit curl.lib :( * gcstub64, phobos64 still have '64' in the name :( Oh well, there's always next time... Can we get rid of the hard dependancy on curl, or ship our own version of it ? It created tremedous problem to me in some environement where it wasn't available in the past.
Re: dmd 2.064.2
On 06.11.2013 05:11, Manu wrote: On 6 November 2013 09:54, Brad Anderson e...@gnuk.net mailto:e...@gnuk.net wrote: On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 23:51:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 11/5/2013 2:52 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin to pull them in sync. The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the one used in the past. I don't see why the file would need to differ between a Windows and Linux box. For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows version and uploaded it. Perfect. Thank you. Seems to work on my system. Notices: * no 64bit curl.lib :( The library used by the auto tester is here: http://downloads.dlang.org/other/curl-7.28.1-devel-rainer.win64.zip * gcstub64, phobos64 still have '64' in the name :( I agree that using identical names is better, but it is not very critical for phobos, because you rarely have to specify it explicitly. Oh well, there's always next time...
