Glad to announce the first beta for the 2.089.0 release, ♥ to the 44 contributors.

http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta
http://dlang.org/changelog/2.089.0.html

As usual please report any bugs at
https://issues.dlang.org

-Martin

On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 06:02:33 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> Glad to announce the first beta for the 2.089.0 release, ♥ to the 44 contributors.

Second beta is live now.

> http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta
> http://dlang.org/changelog/2.089.0.html
>
> As usual please report any bugs at
> https://issues.dlang.org
>
> -Martin

On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 06:02:33 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> Glad to announce the first beta for the 2.089.0 release, ♥ to the 44 contributors.
>
> http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta
> http://dlang.org/changelog/2.089.0.html
>
> As usual please report any bugs at
> https://issues.dlang.org
>
> -Martin

Martin, DMD has been unbuildable from ZIP files for many releases now. This has been reported to Bugzilla a while ago and has been asked about on the forum a few times. Could you please look into it?

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18791

On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 06:02:33 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> As usual please report any bugs at
> https://issues.dlang.org
>
> -Martin

Hi, I've tested my old stuff and found 2 regs.

One deprecation in phobos due to Nullable.get and that was not detected and some weird linking errors, maybe due to typeinfo.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20327
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20328

On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 06:02:33 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> Glad to announce the first beta for the 2.089.0 release, ♥ to the 44 contributors.
>
> http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta
> http://dlang.org/changelog/2.089.0.html
>
> As usual please report any bugs at
> https://issues.dlang.org
>
> -Martin

Release candidate is live now, website should get updated soon.

On Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 12:59:52 UTC, baz wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 06:02:33 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> As usual please report any bugs at
>> https://issues.dlang.org
>>
>> -Martin
>
> Hi, I've tested my old stuff and found 2 regs.
>
> One deprecation in phobos due to Nullable.get and that was not detected and some weird linking errors, maybe due to typeinfo.
>
> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20327
> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20328

Only 20328 is valid actually.

27.10.2019 17:20, baz пишет:
> On Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 12:59:52 UTC, baz wrote:
>> On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 06:02:33 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>> As usual please report any bugs at
>>> https://issues.dlang.org
>>>
>>> -Martin
>>
>> Hi, I've tested my old stuff and found 2 regs.
>>
>> One deprecation in phobos due to Nullable.get and that was not detected and some weird linking errors, maybe due to typeinfo.
>>
>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20327
>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20328
> 
> Only 20328 is valid actually.
I confirm the bugs related to Nullable.get (I have another one). I have no the reduced case but there are definitly issues with deprecated Nullable.get

On Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 15:04:34 UTC, drug wrote:
> 27.10.2019 17:20, baz пишет:
>> On Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 12:59:52 UTC, baz wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 06:02:33 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>>> As usual please report any bugs at
>>>> https://issues.dlang.org
>>>>
>>>> -Martin
>>>
>>> Hi, I've tested my old stuff and found 2 regs.
>>>
>>> One deprecation in phobos due to Nullable.get and that was not detected and some weird linking errors, maybe due to typeinfo.
>>>
>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20327
>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20328
>> 
>> Only 20328 is valid actually.
> I confirm the bugs related to Nullable.get (I have another one). I have no the reduced case but there are definitly issues with deprecated Nullable.get

According to a little investigation the message would be caused by this unittest [1].

I would suggest to disable it (using version(none)) or to extract it from the struct to the global scope. It's not recommended to add unittest blocks in templatized types anyway, because when the test is not dependent on the template params, like here, it's always the same that gets executed for each instance.

[1]: https://github.com/dlang/phobos/blob/master/std/typecons.d#L2889-L2897

On Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 16:38:30 UTC, baz wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 15:04:34 UTC, drug wrote:
>> 27.10.2019 17:20, baz пишет:
>>> On Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 12:59:52 UTC, baz wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 06:02:33 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>>>> As usual please report any bugs at
>>>>> https://issues.dlang.org
>>>>>
>>>>> -Martin
>>>>
>>>> Hi, I've tested my old stuff and found 2 regs.
>>>>
>>>> One deprecation in phobos due to Nullable.get and that was not detected and some weird linking errors, maybe due to typeinfo.
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20327
>>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20328
>>> 
>>> Only 20328 is valid actually.
>> I confirm the bugs related to Nullable.get (I have another one). I have no the reduced case but there are definitly issues with deprecated Nullable.get
>
> According to a little investigation the message would be caused by this unittest [1].
>
> I would suggest to disable it (using version(none)) or to extract it from the struct to the global scope. It's not recommended to add unittest blocks in templatized types anyway, because when the test is not dependent on the template params, like here, it's always the same that gets executed for each instance.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/dlang/phobos/blob/master/std/typecons.d#L2889-L2897

BTW you're not allowed to do that

// Issue 19799
@safe unittest
{
    import std.format : format;

    const Nullable!string a = const(Nullable!string)();

    format!"%s"(a.get); // added .get here
}

because the Nullable is in a null state, .get call crash the program in assert mode.
Maybe you should revert the whole stuff ? What does the author of the deprecation think about this case ("feep" IIRC ) ?

On Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 16:50:00 UTC, baz wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 16:38:30 UTC, baz wrote:
>> On Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 15:04:34 UTC, drug wrote:
>>> 27.10.2019 17:20, baz пишет:
>>>> On Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 12:59:52 UTC, baz wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 06:02:33 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>>>>> As usual please report any bugs at
>>>>>> https://issues.dlang.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, I've tested my old stuff and found 2 regs.
>>>>>
>>>>> One deprecation in phobos due to Nullable.get and that was not detected and some weird linking errors, maybe due to typeinfo.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20327
>>>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20328
>>>> 
>>>> Only 20328 is valid actually.
>>> I confirm the bugs related to Nullable.get (I have another one). I have no the reduced case but there are definitly issues with deprecated Nullable.get
>>
>> According to a little investigation the message would be caused by this unittest [1].
>>
>> I would suggest to disable it (using version(none)) or to extract it from the struct to the global scope. It's not recommended to add unittest blocks in templatized types anyway, because when the test is not dependent on the template params, like here, it's always the same that gets executed for each instance.
>>
>> [1]: https://github.com/dlang/phobos/blob/master/std/typecons.d#L2889-L2897
>
> BTW you're not allowed to do that
>
> // Issue 19799
> @safe unittest
> {
>     import std.format : format;
>
>     const Nullable!string a = const(Nullable!string)();
>
>     format!"%s"(a.get); // added .get here
> }
>
> because the Nullable is in a null state, .get call crash the program in assert mode.
> Maybe you should revert the whole stuff ? What does the author of the deprecation think about this case ("feep" IIRC ) ?

Yeah that's a non-fix. It's a blind replacement of "a" with "a.get" that ignores the fact that Nullable!string has its own toString, ie. this is one of the cases where the `a.get` is actually not triggered at runtime. The fact that the deprecation still triggers is an issue with traits that has no clear and obvious solution. (I advocate Adam's approach of just disabling deprecations in traits outright.)