Walter,

There are so many projects on which I would deploy DMC++ but can't because they require pieces of Boost and other high-end C++ libraries.  There are so many people to whom I recommend DMC++ who then come back at me with the same complaint.

DMC++ already has pretty good namespace support.  Is it really a bear to get the full-up namespaces in there?  What is the hardest part of that work?  Do you have a guesstimate on a timeframe?

It seems like DMC++ has lots of C99 features that no one uses yet, while still lacking the namespace support that everyone needs.  I love the C99 stuff too but the namespace problem is killing me...

Mark

Mark Evans schrieb...
> 
> It seems like DMC++ has lots of C99 features that no one uses yet, while still lacking the namespace support that everyone needs.  I love the C99 stuff too but the namespace problem is killing me...

One more: IMO it would make more sense to first concentrate on making DMC++ standard compliant than to spend time in a new D language.

- Heinz

Sorry about that. I had promised to fix some problems with D first. I don't really know how hard yet it will be to fix all the namespace issues. I did the C99 stuff because they were both easy, nobody else had done them, and some of the back end work needed to be done for D anyway.

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:ant5lf$csa$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter,
>
> There are so many projects on which I would deploy DMC++ but can't because
they
> require pieces of Boost and other high-end C++ libraries.  There are so
many
> people to whom I recommend DMC++ who then come back at me with the same complaint.
>
> DMC++ already has pretty good namespace support.  Is it really a bear to
get the
> full-up namespaces in there?  What is the hardest part of that work?  Do
you
> have a guesstimate on a timeframe?
>
> It seems like DMC++ has lots of C99 features that no one uses yet, while
still
> lacking the namespace support that everyone needs.  I love the C99 stuff
too but
> the namespace problem is killing me...
>
> Mark
>
>

Am pretty sure its not news, but the lack of member-templates is quite a hassle. In fact, later versions of the compiler seem to work with some member-templates, but not all.

I'll narrow this down and post an example.

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:ant5lf$csa$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter,
>
> There are so many projects on which I would deploy DMC++ but can't because
they
> require pieces of Boost and other high-end C++ libraries.  There are so
many
> people to whom I recommend DMC++ who then come back at me with the same complaint.
>
> DMC++ already has pretty good namespace support.  Is it really a bear to
get the
> full-up namespaces in there?  What is the hardest part of that work?  Do
you
> have a guesstimate on a timeframe?
>
> It seems like DMC++ has lots of C99 features that no one uses yet, while
still
> lacking the namespace support that everyone needs.  I love the C99 stuff
too but
> the namespace problem is killing me...
>
> Mark
>
>

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd@synesis.com.au> wrote in message news:anullg$218r$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Am pretty sure its not news, but the lack of member-templates is quite a hassle. In fact, later versions of the compiler seem to work with some member-templates, but not all.
>
> I'll narrow this down and post an example.

8.29 should work with all member templates. I need an example of any bugs.

D and C++ can help each other.  Attracting more users to DMC++ is a simple way to attract more users to D.  The quality of the DMC++ compiler is also something that will attract people to D.

Mark

In article <MPG.180c9c88c80404b39896b2@news.digitalmars.com>, Heinz Saathoff says...
>One more: IMO it would make more sense to first concentrate on making DMC++ standard compliant than to spend time in a new D language.
>
>- Heinz