In article <e7832r$g4h$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>Mostly bug fixes.
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Once again, you rock.  Thanks very much for this :)

Chris Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 02:03:08 -0400, Walter Bright  <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
>> Mostly bug fixes.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that new literal delegate syntax is crazy but I like it.
> 
[...]

Ohhhh fun!! Try finding the bug in this one (ignore the hints).

<code>
#import std.stdio;
#void main()
#{
#	writef(fn,\n);
#}
#
#int fn()
#{
#  int baz()
#  {
#    return 6;
#  }
#
#  void figNewton( int i, int delegate()fnp=&baz, int k=3, int l=0)
#  {
#  }
#  int w;
#
#  figNewton(9,//);
#  {
#    return 1;
#  },//;
#  w = (1+3),//;
#  doNothing/*(*/);
#
#  return 2;
#}
#int doNothing(){return 1;}
</code>


Yah, yah thats about a contrived a C-list movie but...

David Medlock wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Mostly bug fixes.
>> 
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> New delegate syntax looks great, can't wait to try it!

Excellent. It's good to see that Walter likes many of the good features in Ruby. Some Java/C++ -fanboys might say that they're pure syntactic sugar, but trust me - they have lost their sanity long time ago ;)

-- 
Jari-Matti

"Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e7832r$g4h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Mostly bug fixes.
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Oh man, those delegate literals look like it would be very possible to make interesting "pseudo-structures," that is, fake language constructs.  So if you were to define a function as

void func(void delegate() dg);

That is, the last parameter is a void delegate(), it would be an interesting bit of syntactic sugar to be able to write

func
{
    writefln("foo");
}

Not sure what utility this would present, but hey!

Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
> David Medlock wrote:
> 
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Mostly bug fixes.
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>> New delegate syntax looks great, can't wait to try it!
> 
> Excellent. It's good to see that Walter likes many of the good features in
> Ruby. Some Java/C++ -fanboys might say that they're pure syntactic sugar,
> but trust me - they have lost their sanity long time ago ;)

It's possible to go too far with conciseness (APL and Perl show that!), but in general being able to write what you mean with a minimum of fuss makes for a more productive language.

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:e7832r$g4h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Mostly bug fixes.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> Oh man, those delegate literals look like it would be very possible to make interesting "pseudo-structures," that is, fake language constructs.  So if you were to define a function as
> 
> void func(void delegate() dg);
> 
> That is, the last parameter is a void delegate(), it would be an interesting bit of syntactic sugar to be able to write
> 
> func
> {
>     writefln("foo");
> }
> 
> Not sure what utility this would present, but hey! 

There was some thought about doing that, but I'm not so sure it wouldn't be more confusing than useful.

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Mostly bug fixes.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> Great update, lots of bugfixes, and the shorter delegate syntax looks awesome!
> 
> It says "Fixed Bugzilla 53 according to Bruno's analysis" but I don't know anything about bug 53. Did you meant Oskar, or perhaps bug 47?

It wasn't 53, but I can't remember which one it was!

Walter Bright wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Mostly bug fixes.
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>>
>> Great update, lots of bugfixes, and the shorter delegate syntax looks awesome!
>>
>> It says "Fixed Bugzilla 53 according to Bruno's analysis" but I don't know anything about bug 53. Did you meant Oskar, or perhaps bug 47?
> 
> It wasn't 53, but I can't remember which one it was!

Ah, it was #51.

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Mostly bug fixes.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> "Shadowing local variable declarations is now deprecated."
> 
> I thought it had always been illegal by the spec.

It wasn't implemented.


> "Folded in D.bugs/7509"
> 
> You seem to have slipped up here:
> 
> "What's needed is an error handling philosophy and methodology such that:
> [...]
>     * 'Quick and dirty' utilities to be written that still correctly handle errors."
> 
> s/to/can

Thanks, I'll fix.

> 
> "Fixed Bugzilla 57  in 0.151"
> 
> Why is this in the changelog for 0.161?

It was overlooked.


> "Fixed Bugzilla 36  (better error message)"
> "Fixed Bugzilla 85  (now issues error message)"
> 
> And they're also marked as fixed in Bugzilla.  However, at the moment I can't seem to find the bit of the spec that indicates that either is illegal code.

36: forward references are an ongoing issue, I'd like to get rid of all such errors. But in the meantime, having feet of clay, some will give error messages instead.

85: It can't be made to work, because an interface handle is different from a class handle. It doesn't work in C++, either, for the same reasons.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> 
>> "Fixed Bugzilla 85  (now issues error message)"
>>
> 
> 85: It can't be made to work, because an interface handle is different from a class handle. It doesn't work in C++, either, for the same reasons.

Anyway to get a cast? (If it is already there...)
Somthing like:

interface I{...}
class C : I {...}
...

C[] c;
I[] i;

c = ....;

i = cast(I)c;

// same as

i.length = c.length;
foreach(int j, C e; c)
	i[j] = (null !is e)?e:null;