Fixed break introduced in bit struct members.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

In article <cg6kos$19a5$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>Fixed break introduced in bit struct members.
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>

Oh, no! What happened? Did DMD travel back in time?!

Or maybe this was a typo!? Surely, you meant D 1.00! Everyone knows that 0.100 < 0.99? Argggg! The insanity!

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)

jcc7

LOL!

At least we're going to have 799 revisions before we have to listen to that discussion again. :)



"J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message news:cg6llb$1a0t$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <cg6kos$19a5$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
> >
> >Fixed break introduced in bit struct members.
> >
> >http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> >
>
> Oh, no! What happened? Did DMD travel back in time?!
>
> Or maybe this was a typo!? Surely, you meant D 1.00! Everyone knows that 0.100 < 0.99? Argggg! The insanity!
>
> (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)
>
> jcc7

J C Calvarese wrote:
> In article <cg6kos$19a5$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
> 
>>Fixed break introduced in bit struct members.
>>
>>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>>
> 
> 
> Oh, no! What happened? Did DMD travel back in time?! 
> 
> Or maybe this was a typo!? Surely, you meant D 1.00! Everyone knows that 0.100 <
> 0.99? Argggg! The insanity!
> 
> (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)

One step forward, 900 steps back!

 -- andy

We will get lot better 1.00 nothing else.
And what do we complain, D is already usable,
I am using it for a commercial program(on my on risk ofcourse, but we have to
start somewhare - doing real application is the best way to test the language.
I just hope that when errors pop out, then Walter is quick enough to fix them.
In this case he was!),





In article <cg6n9h$1b04$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...
>
>J C Calvarese wrote:
>> In article <cg6kos$19a5$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>> 
>>>Fixed break introduced in bit struct members.
>>>
>>>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> Oh, no! What happened? Did DMD travel back in time?!
>> 
>> Or maybe this was a typo!? Surely, you meant D 1.00! Everyone knows that 0.100 < 0.99? Argggg! The insanity!
>> 
>> (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)
>
>One step forward, 900 steps back!
>
>  -- andy

Matthew wrote:
> LOL!
> 
> At least we're going to have 799 revisions before we have to listen to that discussion again. :)
> 
> 

I do hope we get version 1.0 before version .899!

<subliminal ghostly message>
*Walter* ... *add loader.d to libphobos.a*
</subliminal ghostly message>

J C Calvarese wrote:
> Oh, no! What happened? Did DMD travel back in time?!
> 
> Or maybe this was a typo!? Surely, you meant D 1.00! Everyone knows that 0.100 < 0.99? Argggg! The insanity!
> 
> (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)

I was previous curious as to whether DMD was going to use a "standard" numbering scheme, or a decimal numbering scheme.

It's comforting to see that it's using a standard numbering scheme, but at the same time it's unsettling, because it means more changes are on the way. ;-)

TX

-- 
             Email: Trejkaz Xaoza <trejkaz@xaoza.net>
          Web site: http://xaoza.net/trejkaz/
         Jabber ID: trejkaz@jabber.xaoza.net
   GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F  A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73