1.028's std.thread sports a private definition of WAIT_TIMEOUT, so now it causes conflicts in my libraries. It's one thing if it's actually a feature you're adding, but privately defining for local use causing conflicts?

Chris Miller wrote:
> 1.028's std.thread sports a private definition of WAIT_TIMEOUT, so now it causes conflicts in my libraries. It's one thing if it's actually a feature you're adding, but privately defining for local use causing conflicts?

Yup, that's been a bug for a while (private members being imported). I'm not even sure if Walter acknowledges it as a bug, and if not we probably won't see it changed for a while.

== Quote from Don Clugston (dac@nospam.com.au)'s article
> Walter Bright wrote:
> >
> >
> > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.028.zip
> >
> > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.012.zip
> >
> > Yes, you read that right, struct destructors but no struct constructors yet.
>
> Missing from the D2 changelog:
>
> std.math:

...

> BTW all these changes can be applied to DMD 1.0 -- at present, nothing in std.math is specific to D2.0.

I agree that backwards-compatible improvements to D and Phobos should be eligible for inclusion into D1 (and Phobos1), but Walter disagrees.

This issue is related to the "Who favors the current D1 situation?" thread that
Bill Baxter started today:
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=67313

By the way, some of these kinds of changes to Phobos are available in std2:
http://www.dsource.org/projects/std2
(but apparently std2 development has stopped since the port of DMD 2.008).

jcc7 wrote:
> == Quote from Don Clugston (dac@nospam.com.au)'s article
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.028.zip
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.012.zip
>>>
>>> Yes, you read that right, struct destructors but no struct
>>> constructors yet.
>> Missing from the D2 changelog:
>>
>> std.math:
> 
> ...
> 
>> BTW all these changes can be applied to DMD 1.0 -- at present,
>> nothing in std.math is specific to D2.0.
> 
> I agree that backwards-compatible improvements to D and Phobos should be eligible
> for inclusion into D1 (and Phobos1), but Walter disagrees.
> 
> This issue is related to the "Who favors the current D1 situation?" thread that
> Bill Baxter started today:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=67313
> 
> By the way, some of these kinds of changes to Phobos are available in std2:
> http://www.dsource.org/projects/std2
> (but apparently std2 development has stopped since the port of DMD 2.008).

Yes, things like not fixing bug 493[1] in D1 have made porting to D1 too difficult.  I think if that bug gets fixed then I could get at least std.algorithms D2.012 working in D1.  I spent a few hours yesterday trying to port it (despite my message of abandoning std2 on the web page...)

[1] http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=493

--bb

jcc7 wrote:
> == Quote from Don Clugston (dac@nospam.com.au)'s article
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.028.zip
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.012.zip
>>>
>>> Yes, you read that right, struct destructors but no struct
>>> constructors yet.
>> Missing from the D2 changelog:
>>
>> std.math:
> 
> ...
> 
>> BTW all these changes can be applied to DMD 1.0 -- at present,
>> nothing in std.math is specific to D2.0.
> 
> I agree that backwards-compatible improvements to D and Phobos should be eligible
> for inclusion into D1 (and Phobos1), but Walter disagrees.

I intend to move most of these changes into Phobos1, since they are almost all bugfixes.

Don Clugston wrote:
> I intend to move most of these changes into Phobos1, since they are almost all bugfixes.

I agree.