Fixed my bungled integration of std.socket.

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

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:06:00 -0800, Walter <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Fixed my bungled integration of std.socket.
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>

hooray :)

Walter says...
>
>Fixed my bungled integration of std.socket.
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>
>

Walter,

I just downloaded 115 and when I run the command on the DOS prompt I get this,

1:26:05.53>dmd
Digital Mars D Compiler v0.114
Copyright (c) 1999-2005 by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright
Documentation: www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html
Usage:
dmd files.d ... { -switch }

files.d        D source files
-c             do not link
-d             allow deprecated features
-g             add symbolic debug info
-gt            add trace profiling hooks
-v             verbose
-O             optimize
-odobjdir      write object files to directory objdir
-offilename    name output file to filename
-op            do not strip paths from source file
-Ipath         where to look for imports
-Llinkerflag   pass linkerflag to link
-debug         compile in debug code
-debug=level   compile in debug code <= level
-debug=ident   compile in debug code identified by ident
-inline        do function inlining
-release       compile release version
-unittest      compile in unit tests
-version=level compile in version code >= level
-version=ident compile in version code identified by ident

is this version 115 or 114?

josé

jicman <jicman_member@pathlink.com> wrote in news:d012mk$1q0i$1@digitaldaemon.com:

> is this version 115 or 114?
> 
> josé
> 
> 
> 

It never ends.. ;)

jicman wrote:
> Walter says...
> 
>>Fixed my bungled integration of std.socket.
>>
>>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Walter,
> 
> I just downloaded 115 and when I run the command on the DOS prompt I get this,
> 
> 1:26:05.53>dmd
> Digital Mars D Compiler v0.114
> Copyright (c) 1999-2005 by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright
> Documentation: www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html
> Usage:
> dmd files.d ... { -switch }
> 
> files.d        D source files
> -c             do not link
> -d             allow deprecated features
> -g             add symbolic debug info
> -gt            add trace profiling hooks
> -v             verbose
> -O             optimize
> -odobjdir      write object files to directory objdir
> -offilename    name output file to filename
> -op            do not strip paths from source file
> -Ipath         where to look for imports
> -Llinkerflag   pass linkerflag to link
> -debug         compile in debug code
> -debug=level   compile in debug code <= level
> -debug=ident   compile in debug code identified by ident
> -inline        do function inlining
> -release       compile release version
> -unittest      compile in unit tests
> -version=level compile in version code >= level
> -version=ident compile in version code identified by ident
> 
> is this version 115 or 114?
> 
> josé
> 
> 

He didn't change the compiler code at all, so it would remain at version  114.  There's no point in him changing the compiler source as well just because he needed to fix other files included in the package.

-JJR

In article <d013g9$1qhs$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...

>He didn't change the compiler code at all, so it would remain at version
>  114.  There's no point in him changing the compiler source as well
>just because he needed to fix other files included in the package.

Don't get me wrong.  I am not complaining.  I just downloaded dmd115.zip, which tells me that I've downloaded version 0.115, but when I run dmd it is 114.  Here is a question: is 0.115 going to be zipped under dmd116.zip?

Just a thought...  And please, don't get me wrong, I appreciate what everyone is doing.  I just want to be clear on it.

thanks.

jic

"jicman" <jicman_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d0228t$30td$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <d013g9$1qhs$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
>
> >He didn't change the compiler code at all, so it would remain at version
> >  114.  There's no point in him changing the compiler source as well
> >just because he needed to fix other files included in the package.
>
> Don't get me wrong.  I am not complaining.  I just downloaded dmd115.zip,
which
> tells me that I've downloaded version 0.115, but when I run dmd it is 114.
Here
> is a question: is 0.115 going to be zipped under dmd116.zip?
>
> Just a thought...  And please, don't get me wrong, I appreciate what
everyone is
> doing.  I just want to be clear on it.

The version on the package is the version for the package - if the individual items in it were not changed, they will bear the version number of the last package in which they did change. The next update will be 116, and dmd.exe for that will be 116.

Thanks, Walter.  As we say in Spanish, gracias! :-)


In article <d029pi$9b4$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"jicman" <jicman_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d0228t$30td$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> In article <d013g9$1qhs$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
>>
>> >He didn't change the compiler code at all, so it would remain at version
>> >  114.  There's no point in him changing the compiler source as well
>> >just because he needed to fix other files included in the package.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong.  I am not complaining.  I just downloaded dmd115.zip,
>which
>> tells me that I've downloaded version 0.115, but when I run dmd it is 114.
>Here
>> is a question: is 0.115 going to be zipped under dmd116.zip?
>>
>> Just a thought...  And please, don't get me wrong, I appreciate what
>everyone is
>> doing.  I just want to be clear on it.
>
>The version on the package is the version for the package - if the individual items in it were not changed, they will bear the version number of the last package in which they did change. The next update will be 116, and dmd.exe for that will be 116.
>
>

Walter wrote:
> "jicman" <jicman_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
> news:d0228t$30td$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>In article <d013g9$1qhs$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
>>
>>
>>>He didn't change the compiler code at all, so it would remain at version
>>> 114.  There's no point in him changing the compiler source as well
>>>just because he needed to fix other files included in the package.
>>
>>Don't get me wrong.  I am not complaining.  I just downloaded dmd115.zip,
> 
> which
> 
>>tells me that I've downloaded version 0.115, but when I run dmd it is 114.
> 
> Here
> 
>>is a question: is 0.115 going to be zipped under dmd116.zip?
>>
>>Just a thought...  And please, don't get me wrong, I appreciate what
> 
> everyone is
> 
>>doing.  I just want to be clear on it.
> 
> 
> The version on the package is the version for the package - if the
> individual items in it were not changed, they will bear the version number
> of the last package in which they did change. The next update will be 116,
> and dmd.exe for that will be 116.

Er, it's not really as simple as that. The point of version numbers (be they sequential, staggered, or otherwise distinct) is to take care of _all_ situations. Not unusual is what just happened to D (.114 vs .115).

That is the _only_ reason some products have 99.999.999 version numbering. The first group means changes that _will_ break code -- it's used with Old software, too. The second group is for changes that _may_ introduce trivial problems with old source code. And the third group is for changes that don't matter for existing code. (Like the .114 vs .115 changes.)

Now, the Linux community introduced the concept of odd and even minor numbers of releases. We may not be at that level with D, but we should prepare for the day when everyone expects this numbering.

The point Anders and others have been trying (in vain) to get through, is that no matter what gets changed, at least for the distros, it really does matter what the release number is. -- And, the point is not really _how_ you number them, it is only about having unique identifiers for unique releases. (So, a perfect .11x and its just as perfect sister release, that only differs in a side library not getting forgot, really _do_ have to have _different_ identifiers. (=release numbers) ))

Not having this as a habit _will_ cause havoc with automatic package maintaining software, with the users (" I got 115, how come you can compile this and I don't? And you also got 115!) (And none of these guys figured out that person A downloaded his package 3 minutes before person B.)

Having read the above, would it be nice to download package V.11x and way later discover that the compiler considers the package V.11(x-1) ?

Walter wrote:
> Fixed my bungled integration of std.socket.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> 

Yay for that. I just started doing network programming and was started to pull my hair out over what I was doing wrong... upgraded to .115 just now and it works fine...

-- 
-PIB

--
"C++ also supports the notion of *friends*: cooperative classes that
are permitted to see each other's private parts." - Grady Booch