Georg Wrede wrote:
> Thomas Kuehne wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> <snip lots of amazing D future info>
> 
> I hope I'm not the only one who's looking at this in amazement. Have I grossly skipped something fundamentally obvious in this NG, or is it that some info about future improvements are distributed through channels other than this NG?

Aside from this NG there is the digitalmars.D.announce NG.  Did you miss the announcement of D2.0 over there?

Nothing mysterious here.  I think Thomas just got busy figuring out how D2.0 works the minute Walter uploaded it.

--bb

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
>> Thomas Kuehne wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> <snip lots of amazing D future info>
>>
>> I hope I'm not the only one who's looking at this in amazement. Have I grossly skipped something fundamentally obvious in this NG, or is it that some info about future improvements are distributed through channels other than this NG?
> 
> Aside from this NG there is the digitalmars.D.announce NG.  Did you miss the announcement of D2.0 over there?
> 
> Nothing mysterious here.  I think Thomas just got busy figuring out how D2.0 works the minute Walter uploaded it.

Heh, after two days of nothing new in D.announce, i blink, and pow! it's full of breathtaking news.

Sigh.

PS, Congrats to Walter!

Walter Bright schrieb am 2007-06-18:
> Thomas Kuehne wrote:
>> Below are a few code samples that might help you to make your code compatible with DMD-1.016 as well as DMD-2.000.

[...]

> This is why I put the string aliases into dmd 1.016. Then, just replace the char[] with string, and it'll work with both 1.0 and 2.0.

[...]

> I fixed the 1.015 compiler to accept the () as being optional. So, use the () for both, and it should work.

The main problem is that both changes aren't yet incorporated into GDC and unlike GDC DMD can't generate 64bit code.

Thomas

Thomas Kuehne wrote:
> 6) C-strings
> ============
> 
> Sometime I have to interface with C libries this "const char*" is
> required:
> 
> # static if(1 < dmd_version){
> #    mixin("alias const(char)* stringz;");
> # }else{
> #    alias char* stringz;
> # }
> 
> The mixin in required because the content has to be syntactically
> correct and "const(char)" isn't a valid DMD-1 construct.


Is there any reason not to use 'in' instead?  stringz looks a bit alien in C prototypes.

Phobos does just that, so I suppose it's okay:

char* strcpy(char* s1, in char* s2);