Extrawurst wrote:
> Walter Bright schrieb:
>> Extrawurst wrote:
>>> but what happened to scoped interfaces:
>>> [CODE]
>>>
>>> interface IFoo {
>>> }
>>>
>>> class Foo : IFoo {}
>>>
>>> IFoo getaFoo(){
>>>    return new Foo();
>>> }
>>>
>>> void main() {
>>>    scope auto a = getaFoo();
>>> }
>>>
>>> [/CODE]
>>>
>>> this is illegal since 2.010. how can i do such a thing from now on ?
>>
>> It never worked anyway. The problem is an interface cannot be deleted. The solution is two steps:
>>
>>   scope f = new Foo();
>>   IFoo i = f;
> 
> The point is that an unchanged code that used to work with dmd2.009 did exactly that and worked. By changing to dmd2.010 it is now broken.

It didn't always work: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1719

-- 
E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi

Don Clugston wrote:
> Thanks! Are there any short-term plans to do anything with 'pure', or are you just reserving the keyword (as was done for 'macro')?

It's just to reserve it.

> BTW, could you please fix bug #1072? It should only take two minutes (already has a patch). Just got bitten by it again.

Sure, I'll take care of it.

Extrawurst wrote:
> torhu schrieb:
>> Extrawurst wrote:
>>> The point is that an unchanged code that used to work with dmd2.009 did exactly that and worked. By changing to dmd2.010 it is now broken.
>>
>> That's to be expected, 2.x compilers are still alpha quality.
> 
> i am just asking for why this has changed ?!

Oh sorry, I thought Walter explained that.

Walter Bright Wrote:

> Extrawurst wrote:
> > "
> > opAssign can no longer be overloaded for class objects.
> > "
> > 
> > why is that ? that change breaks lots of my code... ;(
> 
> I didn't realize anyone was using it. What are you using it for?

I was using it for my Matrix class to index specific positions on the matrix. This will make me have to refactor A LOT of my code. I won't be upgrading to DMD 2.10 (sticking with 2.9) until this change becomes permanent.

Walter Bright wrote:

> bug fixing
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip

Thanks for the bug fixes!

Walter Bright Wrote:

> bug fixing
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip

Walter, I noticed that size of D v2.009's zip was 334Kb larger than the current D v2.010's zip...I'm curious as to what got trimmed?

David

David L. Davis wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
> 
>> bug fixing
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip
> 
> Walter, I noticed that size of D v2.009's zip was 334Kb larger than the current D v2.010's zip...I'm curious as to what got trimmed? 
> 
> David

IIRC the size of binaries dmd produces went up for no apparent reason between 2.07 or 2.08 -> 2.09 (on win32 at least).

Neal Alexander Wrote:

> David L. Davis wrote:
> > Walter Bright Wrote:
> > 
> >> bug fixing
> >>
> >> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
> >>
> >> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip
> > 
> > Walter, I noticed that size of D v2.009's zip was 334Kb larger than the current D v2.010's zip...I'm curious as to what got trimmed?
> > 
> > David
> 
> IIRC the size of binaries dmd produces went up for no apparent reason between 2.07 or 2.08 -> 2.09 (on win32 at least).

Neal,

    Yep, after downloading the D v2.008 zipfile and looking at the sizes again I can see what you mean. Thanks for the reply.

David

Neal Alexander wrote:
> David L. Davis wrote:
>> Walter Bright Wrote:
>>
>>> bug fixing
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.026.zip
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip
>>
>> Walter, I noticed that size of D v2.009's zip was 334Kb larger than the current D v2.010's zip...I'm curious as to what got trimmed? David
> 
> IIRC the size of binaries dmd produces went up for no apparent reason between 2.07 or 2.08 -> 2.09 (on win32 at least).

Historically, this has been from additions to the TypeInfo objects.  Was there an increase in D 1.0 executable sizes as well?


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Historically, this has been from additions to the TypeInfo objects.  Was
> there an increase in D 1.0 executable sizes as well?

It helps to use the right switches when compiling <g>.