Hi,

Whenever I try to build DWT either with rake or rdmd, it fails.
More specifically, base compiles fine, but swt bogs down because several Win32 symbols are inaccessible. Do I have to derelic those before?

Greetings

On 2013-02-14 18:52, Sebastian Graf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Whenever I try to build DWT either with rake or rdmd, it fails.
> More specifically, base compiles fine, but swt bogs down because several
> Win32 symbols are inaccessible. Do I have to derelic those before?

It would help If you could post the compile/link errors here.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Thursday, 14 February 2013 at 19:46:28 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-02-14 18:52, Sebastian Graf wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Whenever I try to build DWT either with rake or rdmd, it fails.
>> More specifically, base compiles fine, but swt bogs down because several
>> Win32 symbols are inaccessible. Do I have to derelic those before?
>
> It would help If you could post the compile/link errors here.

This is the combined output from 1> and 2> : http://pastebin.com/mricdjtn

On 2013-02-14 20:57, Sebastian Graf wrote:

> This is the combined output from 1> and 2> : http://pastebin.com/mricdjtn

I think the problem is that the submodules are not update. I've updated them, give it a try now.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Thursday, 14 February 2013 at 20:15:00 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-02-14 20:57, Sebastian Graf wrote:
>
>> This is the combined output from 1> and 2> : http://pastebin.com/mricdjtn
>
> I think the problem is that the submodules are not update. I've updated them, give it a try now.
Thanks, that did it.

On Thursday, 14 February 2013 at 20:15:00 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-02-14 20:57, Sebastian Graf wrote:
>
>> This is the combined output from 1> and 2> : http://pastebin.com/mricdjtn
>
> I think the problem is that the submodules are not update. I've updated them, give it a try now.

Are there any plans to make DWT more D? I mean "trivial" things like fixing import names, unified getters and setters, mostly compatibility stuff. Is this even possible from a technical point of view?

On 2013-02-14 22:04, Sebastian Graf wrote:

> Are there any plans to make DWT more D? I mean "trivial" things like
> fixing import names, unified getters and setters, mostly compatibility
> stuff. Is this even possible from a technical point of view?

What's wrong with the import names? First a foremost we're trying to keep the code as close as possible to the original Java code. This will help porting new versions in the future. Although adding properties would only be an addition and probably not interfere with future portings. Short answer: I don't know.

It should be an problem from a technical point of view.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-02-14 21:36, Sebastian Graf wrote:

> Thanks, that did it.

Cool :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Friday, 15 February 2013 at 07:25:49 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
> What's wrong with the import names? First a foremost we're trying to keep the code as close as possible to the original Java code. This will help porting new versions in the future. Although adding properties would only be an addition and probably not interfere with future portings. Short answer: I don't know.
>
> It should be an problem from a technical point of view.

I'd like to contribute something... Is there anything simple to
begin with?

On 2013-02-15 09:45, Sebastian Graf wrote:

> I'd like to contribute something... Is there anything simple to
> begin with?

Could you first create a list of what you want more specifically to do/change to have it more D like.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg