February 16, 2012 Re: dmd 1.073 and 2.058 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 04:47:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Anyone care to count up the number of bug fixes here?
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.073.zip
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> https://github.com/downloads/D-Programming-Language/dmd/dmd.2.058.zip
The v2.058 tag in the git repo is missing
/Jonas
|
February 16, 2012 Re: dmd 1.073 and 2.058 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Piotr Szturmaj | On 15.02.2012 17:21, Piotr Szturmaj wrote: > Walter Bright wrote: >> Anyone care to count up the number of bug fixes here? >> >> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html >> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.073.zip >> >> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html >> https://github.com/downloads/D-Programming-Language/dmd/dmd.2.058.zip > > Great! Keep up good work! > > One note thought: I see that there are some new features borrowed from > 2.057 log. Is this on purpose or an oversight? Nice release! Though I see that the library bugs section is almost identical to 2.057 O_o -- Dmitry Olshansky |
February 16, 2012 Re: dmd 1.073 and 2.058 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
On Thursday, February 16, 2012 00:10:20 Caligo wrote:
> float x = 1.f; // GIVES ERROR
>
> float y = 0.f; // OK
>
> what's up with that? Is that a bug?
I would think so.
- Jonathan M Davis
|
February 16, 2012 Re: dmd 1.073 and 2.058 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jonas Drewsen | On 2/16/2012 1:00 AM, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
> The v2.058 tag in the git repo is missing
git tag
shows it's there.
|
February 16, 2012 Re: dmd 1.073 and 2.058 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jonathan M Davis Attachments:
| Is it trying to call function f(int x) on 1 with new universal
syntax? :)
Il giorno gio, 16/02/2012 alle 01.29 -0800, Jonathan M Davis ha scritto:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2012 00:10:20 Caligo wrote:
> > float x = 1.f; // GIVES ERROR
> >
> > float y = 0.f; // OK
> >
> > what's up with that? Is that a bug?
>
> I would think so.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
|
February 16, 2012 Re: dmd 1.073 and 2.058 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Great work guys! That's a lot of bug fixes. I was completely excited about UFCS when I read it had been implemented, but it doesn't seem to work. What has it been implemented for exactly? |
February 16, 2012 Re: dmd 1.073 and 2.058 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Ali Çehreli | Am 15.02.2012, 23:07 Uhr, schrieb Ali Çehreli <acehreli@yahoo.com>:
> On 02/15/2012 07:49 AM, bearophile wrote:
>> Andrej Mitrovic:
>>
>>> That doesn't seem to work. So does anyone know what exactly is implemented?
>>
>> I don't know. See:
>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/582
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
> Is UFCS DOA? Here is my experiment:
>
> struct S
> {}
>
> @property int foo(S)
> {
> return 42;
> }
>
> void main()
> {
> auto s = S();
> s.foo(); // Error: no property 'foo' for type 'S'
> }
>
> Ali
I'm just repeating what's already been said, but UFCS on classes and structs has the problem of ambiguities with proper methods of those. If 2.058 introduced more UFCS, then it is for literals. Try "123.foo;".
|
February 16, 2012 Re: dmd 1.073 and 2.058 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Dmitry Olshansky | Am 16.02.2012, 10:11 Uhr, schrieb Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh@gmail.com>:
> On 15.02.2012 17:21, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Anyone care to count up the number of bug fixes here?
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.073.zip
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>>> https://github.com/downloads/D-Programming-Language/dmd/dmd.2.058.zip
>>
>> Great! Keep up good work!
>>
>> One note thought: I see that there are some new features borrowed from
>> 2.057 log. Is this on purpose or an oversight?
>
> Nice release!
>
> Though I see that the library bugs section is almost identical to 2.057 O_o
Now that you say it ... the Makefile patch, the to!float("INF2") fix. We should run a diff before counting ;)
|
February 16, 2012 Re: dmd 1.073 and 2.058 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Marco Leise | On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:45:46 +0100, Marco Leise <Marco.Leise@gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 15.02.2012, 23:07 Uhr, schrieb Ali Çehreli <acehreli@yahoo.com>:
>
>> On 02/15/2012 07:49 AM, bearophile wrote:
>>> Andrej Mitrovic:
>>>
>>>> That doesn't seem to work. So does anyone know what exactly is implemented?
>>>
>>> I don't know. See:
>>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/582
>>>
>>> Bye,
>>> bearophile
>>
>> Is UFCS DOA? Here is my experiment:
>>
>> struct S
>> {}
>>
>> @property int foo(S)
>> {
>> return 42;
>> }
>>
>> void main()
>> {
>> auto s = S();
>> s.foo(); // Error: no property 'foo' for type 'S'
>> }
>>
>> Ali
>
> I'm just repeating what's already been said, but UFCS on classes and structs has the problem of ambiguities with proper methods of those. If 2.058 introduced more UFCS, then it is for literals. Try "123.foo;".
I thought floating point literals should change so 0 is required. No more .0 or 0. .
|
February 16, 2012 Re: dmd 1.073 and 2.058 release | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Marco Leise | Marco Leise wrote:
> I'm just repeating what's already been said, but UFCS on classes and structs has the problem of ambiguities with proper methods of those. If 2.058 introduced more UFCS, then it is for literals. Try "123.foo;".
C#'s had "UFSC" for years without ambiguity problems. Also, "123.foo;" doesn't work.
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation