Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Tuesday, 1 April 2014 at 19:03:10 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote: On Saturday, 29 March 2014 at 13:25:19 UTC, Théo Bueno wrote: On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 22:50:32 UTC, Théo Bueno wrote: I am having an issue with the windows installer : Ok, so after investigations I partially fixed my problem : - I have no idea why the installer tried to download with the wrong URL, this should not happen, and on my own compiled version of the installer this did not happen. - The plugin used by NSIS to download files, inetc, depends on WinetAPI, which means that if your Internet Explorer installation is not working ( that was my case ), the installer can't work. - The installer code is very old, and we should think about updating it ( replace the obsolete nsisunz plugin by ZipDLL, avoid inetc problems using builtin NSISdl ... ) The current plan (by me at least) is to just do away with the downloading entirely and just embedding the files in the installer. Would be the best indeed. An online installer is not useful in our case as all the installers and packages are automagically built.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Saturday, 29 March 2014 at 13:25:19 UTC, Théo Bueno wrote: On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 22:50:32 UTC, Théo Bueno wrote: I am having an issue with the windows installer : Ok, so after investigations I partially fixed my problem : - I have no idea why the installer tried to download with the wrong URL, this should not happen, and on my own compiled version of the installer this did not happen. - The plugin used by NSIS to download files, inetc, depends on WinetAPI, which means that if your Internet Explorer installation is not working ( that was my case ), the installer can't work. - The installer code is very old, and we should think about updating it ( replace the obsolete nsisunz plugin by ZipDLL, avoid inetc problems using builtin NSISdl ... ) The current plan (by me at least) is to just do away with the downloading entirely and just embedding the files in the installer.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 22:50:32 UTC, Théo Bueno wrote: I am having an issue with the windows installer : Ok, so after investigations I partially fixed my problem : - I have no idea why the installer tried to download with the wrong URL, this should not happen, and on my own compiled version of the installer this did not happen. - The plugin used by NSIS to download files, inetc, depends on WinetAPI, which means that if your Internet Explorer installation is not working ( that was my case ), the installer can't work. - The installer code is very old, and we should think about updating it ( replace the obsolete nsisunz plugin by ZipDLL, avoid inetc problems using builtin NSISdl ... )
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 08:45:31 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: The final release of DMD 2.065 is now available. [1] contains complete descriptions of all changes, enhancements and fixes for this release. I am having an issue with the windows installer : http://puu.sh/7NdXY.png The URL he is trying to use to download dmd.2.065.zip is broken : http://downloads.dlang.org/releases/2013/dmd.2.065.0.zip instead of : http://downloads.dlang.org/releases/2014/dmd.2.065.0.zip I have downloaded it from the dlang.org download page. I can't believe this was not noticed before, did the installer has been rebuilt recently ? This is very odd as the 2014 string is correctly hardcoded in the sourcecode : https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/installer/blob/master/windows/dinstaller.nsi#L32 Is it related to my version of Windows ( 8 64bits ) ?
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On 2014-02-25 22:51, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: If the compiler generates opEquals and opCmp, then it's guaranteed opEquals(x, y) is equivalent to opCmp(x, y) == 0. The compiler should NOT complain about this, which I should have more clearly stated (I thought I had). Filed as [1]. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a reduced test case. [1] https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12267 -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.065.0
Steven Schveighoffer wrote in message news:op.xbs1naiueav7ka@stevens-macbook-pro.local... A wild wild guess is that there was code in the compiler that used to require it (after all, it was required a long time ago), and somehow it got reactivated by accident. But wild guesses don't help fix bugs :) Walter + Andrei did it, and it was completely intentional, and it was known that it would break code. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3054
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 10:28:41 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote: Walter + Andrei did it, and it was completely intentional, and it was known that it would break code. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3054 I find it so ironical that Walter warns that this may break the code and few comments later says that more appropriate fix is not an option because I don't want to break anything with this release :P
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:28:42 -0500, Daniel Murphy yebbliesnos...@gmail.com wrote: Steven Schveighoffer wrote in message news:op.xbs1naiueav7ka@stevens-macbook-pro.local... A wild wild guess is that there was code in the compiler that used to require it (after all, it was required a long time ago), and somehow it got reactivated by accident. But wild guesses don't help fix bugs :) Walter + Andrei did it, and it was completely intentional, and it was known that it would break code. This was the wrong fix. Druntime should be modified to use TypeInfo.equals instead of TypeInfo.compare. Compare is no longer needed, since it's only used to check for equality. Note that the docs say BOTH opEquals and opCmp should be specified, because either can be used. I would suggest a proper interim fix is to only reject key types that define opEquals, but not opCmp. Then switch to using equals in druntime. Finally, get rid of AA's as a specialized type, map them cleanly to a template. -Steve
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On 2014-02-24 21:29, Walter Bright wrote: Looks like we need to do something about this: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1ytfc5/d_2065_released_with_396_fixes_and_improvements/cfnmkih At a minimum, add it to the changelog. Or possibly remove that change. I've been compiling Tango with the latest version for a couple of releases now. I found some issues for this release. Some were fixed. Some where code that should not have compiled previously. Then I hit the issue with opCmp and I failed to find a reduced test case. Why should I need opCmp in a struct containing only two ints? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 08:45:31 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: The final release of DMD 2.065 is now available. [1] contains complete descriptions of all changes, enhancements and fixes for this release. Nice job wrangling the new release schedule and shepherding your first release out the door, hopefully the first of many to come. Hope it's not too much more work than you thought it'd be when I recommended that you talk to the core devs about taking on the position. Also, kudos to all the contributors, nice to see an amd64 build for FreeBSD finally.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On 2014-02-24 21:29, Walter Bright wrote: Looks like we need to do something about this: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1ytfc5/d_2065_released_with_396_fixes_and_improvements/cfnmkih At a minimum, add it to the changelog. Or possibly remove that change. Answering some of your comments here: Q: If the project fails to compile or run, who is responsible for debugging it A: Preferably we have some way to run a bunch of projects as part of the test suite. Developers sign up their projects if they want to participate. If a build fails the developer gets a notification. The developer is responsible for debugging. If a project has successfully passed the 10 latest releases but the 11th fails I think the DMD/Phobos developers could have a quick look to see if it's something obvious. Q: Individual projects tend to stick with particular subsets of the language. They may be large code bases, but likely exercise relatively small parts of the language, and so their successful compilation is not very indicative of much. A: That's not entirely true. I can tell you that DMD has broken DWT, one way or another, for, at least, the 10 latest releases. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:11:46 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote: I would suggest a proper interim fix is to only reject key types that define opEquals, but not opCmp. Then switch to using equals in druntime. Sorry, I meant define opCmp but not opEquals. Some types can be compared for equality but are not ordered (AA's for example!) -Steve
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 20:24:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/24/2014 9:48 AM, Brad Anderson wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 17:42:07 UTC, Manu wrote: First thing I noticed though, the Windows installer seemed to forget where my existing D installation is, and tried to install it somewhere else. I thought this got fixed months ago? Regression in the installer? Nope, not a regression. That never got implemented. Is there a bugzilla issue for this? Nope.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On 2/25/2014 2:28 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote: Walter + Andrei did it, and it was completely intentional, and it was known that it would break code. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3054 It was intended to only break code that was already broken (would fail at runtime). It appears that this turned out to not be entirely true.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On 2/25/2014 11:03 AM, Brad Anderson wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 20:24:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/24/2014 9:48 AM, Brad Anderson wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 17:42:07 UTC, Manu wrote: First thing I noticed though, the Windows installer seemed to forget where my existing D installation is, and tried to install it somewhere else. I thought this got fixed months ago? Regression in the installer? Nope, not a regression. That never got implemented. Is there a bugzilla issue for this? Nope. Please make one - otherwise it'll get overlooked.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On 25 February 2014 17:30, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote: On 2014-02-24 21:29, Walter Bright wrote: Looks like we need to do something about this: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1ytfc5/d_2065_released_with_396_fixes_and_improvements/cfnmkih At a minimum, add it to the changelog. Or possibly remove that change. Answering some of your comments here: Q: If the project fails to compile or run, who is responsible for debugging it A: Preferably we have some way to run a bunch of projects as part of the test suite. Developers sign up their projects if they want to participate. If a build fails the developer gets a notification. The developer is responsible for debugging. If a project has successfully passed the 10 latest releases but the 11th fails I think the DMD/Phobos developers could have a quick look to see if it's something obvious. Q: Individual projects tend to stick with particular subsets of the language. They may be large code bases, but likely exercise relatively small parts of the language, and so their successful compilation is not very indicative of much. A: That's not entirely true. I can tell you that DMD has broken DWT, one way or another, for, at least, the 10 latest releases. +1 I've have old projects break for silly reasons. A forward reference regression here, an ICE suddenly appeared there. These things happen and never get caught during the beta phase because. 1) I'm not actively developing the project. 2) I have a compiled binary I use sometimes day in day out, and have no reason to recompile it. :)
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On 2/24/2014 12:29 PM, Walter Bright wrote: Looks like we need to do something about this: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1ytfc5/d_2065_released_with_396_fixes_and_improvements/cfnmkih At a minimum, add it to the changelog. Or possibly remove that change. https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12255
Re: dmd 2.065.0
24-Feb-2014 12:45, Andrew Edwards пишет: The final release of DMD 2.065 is now available. [1] contains complete descriptions of all changes, enhancements and fixes for this release. Available binaries can be accessed at [2]. Since the website will lag slightly behind, links are provided below for convenience. Awesome. Thanks to everybody behind the release engineering. I don't know how good or painful it gets for these involved but from the outside (as a core developer) I see remarkable progress in handling the process. -- Dmitry Olshansky
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:33:05 -0500, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 2/25/2014 2:28 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Walter + Andrei did it, and it was completely intentional, and it was
known that
it would break code.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3054
It was intended to only break code that was already broken (would fail
at runtime). It appears that this turned out to not be entirely true.
I just wrote this and compiled on 2.064:
import std.stdio;
struct S
{
int x;
int y;
bool opEquals(ref const(S) other) const { return other.x == x;}
}
void main()
{
int[S] aa;
aa[S(1, 2)] = 5;
aa[S(1, 3)] = 6;
writeln(aa);
}
Output:
[S(1, 2):5, S(1, 3):6]
Now, clearly this is not correct, and should be flagged by the compiler,
or fixed in the runtime.
I suggest this path:
1. Switch AA to using the 'equals' function
2. Do not allow keys that provide opCmp function but not opEquals (these
will not work correctly)
This will provide a sane implementation and not break existing code when
the default opEquals and opCmp are used (both will act the same as far as
AAs are concerned).
-Steve
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On 2014-02-25 20:49, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I just wrote this and compiled on 2.064:
import std.stdio;
struct S
{
int x;
int y;
bool opEquals(ref const(S) other) const { return other.x == x;}
}
void main()
{
int[S] aa;
aa[S(1, 2)] = 5;
aa[S(1, 3)] = 6;
writeln(aa);
}
Output:
[S(1, 2):5, S(1, 3):6]
Now, clearly this is not correct, and should be flagged by the compiler,
or fixed in the runtime.
I suggest this path:
1. Switch AA to using the 'equals' function
2. Do not allow keys that provide opCmp function but not opEquals (these
will not work correctly)
This will provide a sane implementation and not break existing code when
the default opEquals and opCmp are used (both will act the same as far
as AAs are concerned).
The thing is that the compiler complains about a deceleration looking
like this:
struct TagIndex
{
uint tag, index;
}
Neither opEquals or opCmp is overloaded. A simple test case will also
show that the compiler doesn't not complain about a missing opCmp. I
have not been able to create a reduced test case for this.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:12:41 -0500, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com wrote:
The thing is that the compiler complains about a deceleration looking
like this:
struct TagIndex
{
uint tag, index;
}
If the compiler generates opEquals and opCmp, then it's guaranteed
opEquals(x, y) is equivalent to opCmp(x, y) == 0.
The compiler should NOT complain about this, which I should have more
clearly stated (I thought I had).
Neither opEquals or opCmp is overloaded. A simple test case will also
show that the compiler doesn't not complain about a missing opCmp. I
have not been able to create a reduced test case for this.
I realized, after trying to get opCmp to work, I was missing a piece --
toHash! I couldn't get the thing to only store one key!
So I have to update my requirements. Here are the two cases where a struct
T should be usable as an AA key:
1. Neither opCmp nor opEquals are defined (and defaults are generated).
2. Both opEquals and toHash are defined.
Any other key types should be disallowed.
-Steve
dmd 2.065.0
The final release of DMD 2.065 is now available. [1] contains complete
descriptions of all changes, enhancements and fixes for this release.
Available binaries can be accessed at [2]. Since the website will lag
slightly behind, links are provided below for convenience.
All Systems:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.zip
FreeBSD:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.freebsd-64.zip
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.freebsd-32.zip
Linux:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-0_i386.deb
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.fedora.i386.rpm
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.linux.zip
MAC OS X:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.dmg
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.osx.zip
Windows:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0.exe
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.windows.zip
[1] http://dlang.org/chagelog.html
[2] http://dlang.org/download.html
Regards,
Andrew
--
http://www.akeron.co
auto getAddress() {
string location = @, period = .;
return (info ~ location ~ afidem ~ period ~ org);
}
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On 02/24/2014 09:45 AM, Andrew Edwards wrote: The final release of DMD 2.065 is now available. [1] contains complete descriptions of all changes, enhancements and fixes for this release. (...) [1] http://dlang.org/chagelog.html Great news! Your changelog link has a typo, and it's not updated for 2.065.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
\o/ Congrats! I'm excited for this release, it fixes a good amount of bugs that have been plaguing me.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 08:45:31 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: The final release of DMD 2.065 is now available. [1] contains complete descriptions of all changes, enhancements and fixes for this release. Awesome release! Available binaries can be accessed at [2]. Since the website will lag slightly behind, links are provided below for convenience. Actually no, there is still just 2.064 on the download page
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 08:45:31 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: The final release of DMD 2.065 is now available. [1] contains complete descriptions of all changes, enhancements and fixes for this release. Available binaries can be accessed at [2]. Since the website will lag slightly behind, links are provided below for convenience. All Systems: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.zip FreeBSD: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.freebsd-64.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.freebsd-32.zip Linux: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.fedora.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.linux.zip MAC OS X: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.dmg http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.osx.zip Windows: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0.exe http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.windows.zip [1] http://dlang.org/chagelog.html [2] http://dlang.org/download.html Regards, Andrew [1] gives: Not Found The requested URL /chagelog.html was not found on this server.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On 2/24/14, 3:45 AM, Andrew Edwards wrote: The final release of DMD 2.065 is now available. [1] contains complete descriptions of all changes, enhancements and fixes for this release. [1] http://dlang.org/chagelog.html Correction: http://dlang.org/changelog.html Note that this page is still pinging update to 2.065.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 10:33:27 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: All Systems: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.zip FreeBSD: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.freebsd-64.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.freebsd-32.zip Linux: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.fedora.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.linux.zip MAC OS X: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.dmg http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.osx.zip Windows: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0.exe http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.windows.zip [1] http://dlang.org/chagelog.html [2] http://dlang.org/download.html Regards, Andrew [1] gives: Not Found The requested URL /chagelog.html was not found on this server. Indeed, it's a mispelling, and the changelog.html is not yet updated. However, you can download the zip and find the correct, updated changelog from the [zipfile.zip]/html/d/ folder Very nice work! 280+ issues closed for DMD, 80+ issues closed for phobos. Thank you to all the contributors!
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 10:43:32 UTC, Francesco Cattoglio wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 10:33:27 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: All Systems: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.zip FreeBSD: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.freebsd-64.zip http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.freebsd-32.zip Linux: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-0_i386.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.fedora.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.linux.zip MAC OS X: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.dmg http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.osx.zip Windows: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0.exe http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.windows.zip [1] http://dlang.org/chagelog.html [2] http://dlang.org/download.html Regards, Andrew [1] gives: Not Found The requested URL /chagelog.html was not found on this server. Indeed, it's a mispelling, and the changelog.html is not yet updated. However, you can download the zip and find the correct, updated changelog from the [zipfile.zip]/html/d/ folder Very nice work! 280+ issues closed for DMD, 80+ issues closed for phobos. Thank you to all the contributors! I love these ChangeLogs! Really great things for a person that still learns D. So 2.065 is not the one that will make class methods final by default?
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:04:14 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: So 2.065 is not the one that will make class methods final by default? Correct. The pull for it is https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2895
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:21:32 UTC, Kapps wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:04:14 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: So 2.065 is not the one that will make class methods final by default? Correct. The pull for it is https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2895 Clear, thanks. 2.066 then I suppose?
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:21:32 UTC, Kapps wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:04:14 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: So 2.065 is not the one that will make class methods final by default? Correct. The pull for it is https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2895 Clear, thanks. 2.066 then I suppose?
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:21:32 UTC, Kapps wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:04:14 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: So 2.065 is not the one that will make class methods final by default? Correct. The pull for it is https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2895 Not really. This pull introduce the virtual keyword. The next step will afaik force you to write on every method if it is virtual or final. The step afterwards will probably introduce final by default.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:45:20 UTC, Namespace wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:21:32 UTC, Kapps wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:04:14 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: So 2.065 is not the one that will make class methods final by default? Correct. The pull for it is https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2895 Not really. This pull introduce the virtual keyword. The next step will afaik force you to write on every method if it is virtual or final. The step afterwards will probably introduce final by default. Yes yes, I understand :)
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:44:30 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:21:32 UTC, Kapps wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:04:14 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: So 2.065 is not the one that will make class methods final by default? Correct. The pull for it is https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2895 Clear, thanks. 2.066 then I suppose? Let us hope so!
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:45:20 UTC, Namespace wrote: Not really. This pull introduce the virtual keyword. The next step will afaik force you to write on every method if it is virtual or final. The step afterwards will probably introduce final by default. Wait, does this mean we finally came to some kind of agreement on the whole debate? I was sure that any kind of change of current behaviour was being vetoed
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 08:45:31 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: Windows: http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0.exe http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.windows.zip The .zip file for Windows isn't listed on the download page. http://dlang.org/download.html
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 08:45:31 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote: The final release of DMD 2.065 is now available. Cool. I found two bugs in the comments to library changes point 2. The 2nd comment says all values are not true but what the check does is not all values are true. Same for the 4th comment: all values do not convert to true should be not all values convert to true.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
El 24/02/14 09:45, Andrew Edwards ha escrit: The final release of DMD 2.065 is now available. Congratulations for this new dmd release! New deb packages and dlangspec in several formats available at http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/ -- Jordi Sayol
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On 2/24/14, 4:24 AM, Francesco Cattoglio wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:45:20 UTC, Namespace wrote: Not really. This pull introduce the virtual keyword. The next step will afaik force you to write on every method if it is virtual or final. The step afterwards will probably introduce final by default. Wait, does this mean we finally came to some kind of agreement on the whole debate? Not finally... virtually :o). Andrei
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 17:37:08 UTC, Dicebot wrote: Arch packages have just been updated. Thank You! Mike
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On 2/24/2014 9:48 AM, Brad Anderson wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 17:42:07 UTC, Manu wrote: First thing I noticed though, the Windows installer seemed to forget where my existing D installation is, and tried to install it somewhere else. I thought this got fixed months ago? Regression in the installer? Nope, not a regression. That never got implemented. Is there a bugzilla issue for this?
Re: dmd 2.065.0
Looks like we need to do something about this: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1ytfc5/d_2065_released_with_396_fixes_and_improvements/cfnmkih At a minimum, add it to the changelog. Or possibly remove that change.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
BTW it seems the copyright notice is outdated:
DMD64 D Compiler v2.065
Copyright (c) *1999-2013* by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright
Documentation: http://dlang.org/
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Andrew Edwards rid...@yahoo.com wrote:
The final release of DMD 2.065 is now available. [1] contains complete
descriptions of all changes, enhancements and fixes for this release.
Available binaries can be accessed at [2]. Since the website will lag
slightly behind, links are provided below for convenience.
All Systems:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.zip
FreeBSD:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.freebsd-64.zip
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.freebsd-32.zip
Linux:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-0_i386.deb
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.065.0-0_amd64.deb
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.fedora.i386.rpm
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.linux.zip
MAC OS X:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.dmg
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.osx.zip
Windows:
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.065.0.exe
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.065.0.windows.zip
[1] http://dlang.org/chagelog.html
[2] http://dlang.org/download.html
Regards,
Andrew
--
http://www.akeron.co
auto getAddress() {
string location = @, period = .;
return (info ~ location ~ afidem ~ period ~ org);
}
Re: dmd 2.065.0
Great work! It warms my heart to see D improving at a steady rate. I'm starting to use it on my next major project as it also seems the IDE support (Mono-D) has improved too.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:29:51 -0500, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote: Looks like we need to do something about this: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1ytfc5/d_2065_released_with_396_fixes_and_improvements/cfnmkih At a minimum, add it to the changelog. Or possibly remove that change. I think the change should go (if it was intentional). IIRC, opCmp was required in D1 and older versions of D2, because hash collisions were stored in a tree instead of a LL. The documentation should be updated too. -Steve
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 21:00:53 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: I think the change should go (if it was intentional). IIRC, opCmp was required in D1 and older versions of D2, because hash collisions were stored in a tree instead of a LL. The documentation should be updated too. -Steve Why *was* there a change to enforce that AA keys have opCmp? It doesn't seem to me like any responses SiegeLord got were satisfactory, i.e., why was this change made, and why was it not in the changelog?
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On 2/24/2014 12:45 AM, Andrew Edwards wrote: The final release of DMD 2.065 is now available. [1] contains complete descriptions of all changes, enhancements and fixes for this release. Thank you, everyone, for this release! And a special thanks to Andrew who stepped up to organize and manage the release process.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 21:22:12 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: A wild wild guess is that there was code in the compiler that used to require it (after all, it was required a long time ago), and somehow it got reactivated by accident. But wild guesses don't help fix bugs :) In doing a search through my email of the dmd-internals mailing list, I don't see opCmp anywhere. -Steve Ah, I see. I got the impression that he thought it was a deliberate change, which is why he was so irate. Maybe someone should mention this in the thread.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:39 -0500, Meta jared...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 21:00:53 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: I think the change should go (if it was intentional). IIRC, opCmp was required in D1 and older versions of D2, because hash collisions were stored in a tree instead of a LL. The documentation should be updated too. -Steve Why *was* there a change to enforce that AA keys have opCmp? It doesn't seem to me like any responses SiegeLord got were satisfactory, i.e., why was this change made, and why was it not in the changelog? A wild wild guess is that there was code in the compiler that used to require it (after all, it was required a long time ago), and somehow it got reactivated by accident. But wild guesses don't help fix bugs :) In doing a search through my email of the dmd-internals mailing list, I don't see opCmp anywhere. -Steve
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:23:45 -0500, Meta jared...@gmail.com wrote: Ah, I see. I got the impression that he thought it was a deliberate change, which is why he was so irate. Maybe someone should mention this in the thread. I did, but I have a feeling it won't help :) -Steve
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 18:58:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 2/24/14, 4:24 AM, Francesco Cattoglio wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:45:20 UTC, Namespace wrote: Not really. This pull introduce the virtual keyword. The next step will afaik force you to write on every method if it is virtual or final. The step afterwards will probably introduce final by default. Wait, does this mean we finally came to some kind of agreement on the whole debate? Not finally... virtually :o). Andrei Not bad. :-) Joseph
Re: dmd 2.065.0
Szymon Gatner, el 24 de February a las 11:48 me escribiste: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:45:20 UTC, Namespace wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:21:32 UTC, Kapps wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:04:14 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: So 2.065 is not the one that will make class methods final by default? Correct. The pull for it is https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2895 Not really. This pull introduce the virtual keyword. The next step will afaik force you to write on every method if it is virtual or final. The step afterwards will probably introduce final by default. Wait, what? That was one of C++ biggest mistakes! You are seriously wanting to do that? -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- O.K. Just a little pinprick. There'll be no more ah! But you may feel a little sick.
Re: dmd 2.065.0
On Tuesday, 25 February 2014 at 00:09:45 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: Szymon Gatner, el 24 de February a las 11:48 me escribiste: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:45:20 UTC, Namespace wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:21:32 UTC, Kapps wrote: On Monday, 24 February 2014 at 11:04:14 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: So 2.065 is not the one that will make class methods final by default? Correct. The pull for it is https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2895 Not really. This pull introduce the virtual keyword. The next step will afaik force you to write on every method if it is virtual or final. The step afterwards will probably introduce final by default. Wait, what? That was one of C++ biggest mistakes! You are seriously wanting to do that? Don't worry: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11616#c3
