On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:29:36 -0700, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.036.zip
>
>The 2.0 version splits phobos into druntime and phobos libraries (thanks to Sean Kelly). This will enable both Tango and Phobos to share a common core library.
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.020.zip
>
>There are a lot of structural changes that go along with this, so expect some rough patches with this release. It may take a followup release to file them down. There's also some renaming of imports and function names, as a compromise with Tango names.

Please add the compiler versions to bugzilla.

Sergey Gromov wrote:
> Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:40:28 -0700,
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>>> We also now have two modules called 'bitmanip', which is somewhat ironic since we brainstormed for ages trying to come up with a better name for it. Modules with duplicate names have caused linking problems in the past -- not sure if that applies here.
>> It applies if the modules from both Phobos and druntime end up in the same library on *nix.  Windows doesn't appear to have the same issue. But I'd love to hear suggestions for alternative names-- I'm not terribly good at naming modules :-p.
>>
>> Also, any I'd like to see how people feel about having three top-level packages in druntime vs. one-- an alternative I'd considered was to put everything under core.
> 
> I actually was expecting all the runtime stuff to be in core.* and was surprised to find std and sys there.

I didn't even create core until just recently--before that, the modules in core were global, much like object.  So my thoughts on the druntime package layout are still evolving.  I do now think that having a single top-level package would probably be best, but figured I'd solicit opinions before changing anything.


Sean

Sergey Gromov wrote:
> note the 'd' in 'druntime'

Sigh, I seem to have a hard time getting this right!

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> one big issue:  druntime only supported with phobos using D2.

That's because the druntime support is a breaking change for Phobos users.

> Thanks for the efforts!

You're welcome!

Extrawurst Wrote:

> >> But why is it that since 2.020 i cannot name a package "shared" anymore?
> >>
> >> moudle shared.foo;
> >>
> >> dmd: "Identifier expected following module"
> >>
> >> WTF ?
> > 
> > Because shared is now a keyword.
> > 
> 
> Ok, what is it for ? Where is it documented ? Or is it another reserved keyword like "macro" is ?

There was a long discussion on digitalmars.d about this.  It's definitely coming in the short term.  It was on Walter's top 5 a week or so ago... along with integrating druntime, ref return values, and implementing immutable.  I don't recall the whole list, but he's definitely working on this.

This is part of the change to allow thread local storage and have non-local objects marked as shared.  Shared objects would have a number of volatile-like properties.  I'm sure I've butchered the whole topic in trying to do a summary in a sentence or two, but it should give you the general idea of what it is and why the word has become a keyword.

"Walter Bright" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> one big issue:  druntime only supported with phobos using D2.
>
> That's because the druntime support is a breaking change for Phobos users.

Yes, I wasn't suggesting it should be done for D1, what I was saying is the magical land where Tango and Phobos apps live together in harmony is not available yet ;)  Which is part of the reason why several of us Tango devs are working on a D2 branch.

-Steve

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Max Samukha wrote:

> Please add the compiler versions to bugzilla.

Done.

Jason House wrote:
> Extrawurst Wrote:
> 
>>>> But why is it that since 2.020 i cannot name a package "shared" anymore?
>>>>
>>>> moudle shared.foo;
>>>>
>>>> dmd: "Identifier expected following module"
>>>>
>>>> WTF ?
>>> Because shared is now a keyword.
>>>
>> Ok, what is it for ? Where is it documented ? Or is it another reserved keyword like "macro" is ?
> 
> There was a long discussion on digitalmars.d about this.  It's definitely coming in the short term.  It was on Walter's top 5 a week or so ago... along with integrating druntime, ref return values, and implementing immutable.  I don't recall the whole list, but he's definitely working on this.
> 
> This is part of the change to allow thread local storage and have non-local objects marked as shared.  Shared objects would have a number of volatile-like properties.  I'm sure I've butchered the whole topic in trying to do a summary in a sentence or two, but it should give you the general idea of what it is and why the word has become a keyword.

Ok thank you for the summary.

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Sergey Gromov wrote:
>> Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:40:28 -0700,
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> Don wrote:
>>>> We also now have two modules called 'bitmanip', which is somewhat ironic since we brainstormed for ages trying to come up with a better name for it. Modules with duplicate names have caused linking problems in the past -- not sure if that applies here.
>>> It applies if the modules from both Phobos and druntime end up in the same library on *nix.  Windows doesn't appear to have the same issue. But I'd love to hear suggestions for alternative names-- I'm not terribly good at naming modules :-p.
>>>
>>> Also, any I'd like to see how people feel about having three top-level packages in druntime vs. one-- an alternative I'd considered was to put everything under core.
>>
>> I actually was expecting all the runtime stuff to be in core.* and was surprised to find std and sys there.
> 
> I didn't even create core until just recently--before that, the modules in core were global, much like object.  So my thoughts on the druntime package layout are still evolving.  I do now think that having a single top-level package would probably be best, but figured I'd solicit opinions before changing anything.
> 
> 
> Sean

I am all for one toplevel package too.

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Yes, I wasn't suggesting it should be done for D1, what I was saying is the magical land where Tango and Phobos apps live together in harmony is not available yet ;)  Which is part of the reason why several of us Tango devs are working on a D2 branch.

Right!