Hi Walter,

How close are you to DMD version 1.0 ?

As I understood it, you would not do any major changes to the DMC compiler until the DMD was at version 1.0!

Are you going to add a full template support into the compiler ? Will I be able to compile Andrei Alexandrescu library Loki (http://cseng.aw.com/book/0,,0201704315,00.html) with DMC.

Another small thing I found here the other day was the scope of variables in for loops, like:

for( int i=0; i < 10; i++ )
    ;
for( int i=0; i < 10; i++ )
    ;

will not compile because the second occurence of 'int i' will generate a multiple definition of 'i' error! Not a big thing but I think I'm right in that the Standard say's 'int i' should be local to the for-loop scope.

I've been using DMC for the last month or so and I'm very happy about it because it's so fast.

But as I've said before, I would need a better template support in it, so I could use the latest and greatest STLport versions...

I'm following the 'D' mailing list, and I like the arguments, I'm not in need for new language though! What I need to to I can do in C and C++ and I can live with their shortcomings. D is cool though :-)

It's a great task you've assigned your self to, writing a new language and maintaining (keeping up with the Standard) a "great" C/C++ compiler.

Good luck
- Ingi

"Ingvaldur Sigurjonsson" <ingi@ementor.se> wrote in message news:a85418$247$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> How close are you to DMD version 1.0 ?

I wish I was closer!

> As I understood it, you would not do any major changes to the DMC compiler until the DMD was at version 1.0!

The trouble is, if I timeshare between them, I get neither done.

> Are you going to add a full template support into the compiler ?

Yes.

> Will I be
> able to compile Andrei Alexandrescu library Loki
> (http://cseng.aw.com/book/0,,0201704315,00.html) with DMC.

Beats me! My initial goal is to compile STL with no macros for unimplemented features.

> Another small thing I found here the other day was the scope of variables
in
> for loops, like:
>
> for( int i=0; i < 10; i++ )
>     ;
> for( int i=0; i < 10; i++ )
>     ;
>
> will not compile because the second occurence of 'int i' will generate a multiple definition of 'i' error! Not a big thing but I think I'm right in that the Standard say's 'int i' should be local to the for-loop scope.

Yeah, it used to work that way, then they changed the standard, so I changed it, now it's changed back, grrr!

> I've been using DMC for the last month or so and I'm very happy about it because it's so fast.

Great!

> But as I've said before, I would need a better template support in it, so
I
> could use the latest and greatest STLport versions...

I know.

> I'm following the 'D' mailing list, and I like the arguments, I'm not in need for new language though! What I need to to I can do in C and C++ and
I
> can live with their shortcomings. D is cool though :-)
> It's a great task you've assigned your self to, writing a new language and
> maintaining (keeping up with the Standard) a "great" C/C++ compiler.

I'm supporting 4 compilers at the moment; most companies would put a team of 10-30 on each.