http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.029.zip

This starts laying the foundation for multiprogramming support:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.013.zip

在 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:35:40 +0800，Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> 写道:

> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.029.zip
>
> This starts laying the foundation for multiprogramming support:
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.013.zip

nice opDot feature in 2.0.

Though sometimes on windows, people need some unchecked opDot calling.

Consider ActiveX stuff.

People are not always want to have to create their own bindings... especially for some R&D test.

myActiveXObject.Some_Func_Can_be_Determinated_at_runtime();
myActiveXObject.Some_Compile_Time_Unchecked_Var = 3;

with current opDot, we are still not able to do so.

Yet current opDot looks cleaner.

I feel it's kinda dilemma...

-- 
使用 Opera 革命性的电子邮件客户程序: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Walter Bright wrote:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.029.zip
> 
> This starts laying the foundation for multiprogramming support:
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.013.zip

Congrats!  Hopefully that 'wrong vtable call' fix will make the DMD/DWT/Tango combination work once again.

--bb

Walter Bright wrote:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.029.zip
> 
> This starts laying the foundation for multiprogramming support:
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.013.zip

Awesome, awesome...

What does "s can now accept runtime initialized const and invariant case statements" mean? Do you mean switch statements or is this referring to something else?

Robert Fraser wrote:
> What does "s can now accept runtime initialized const and invariant case statements" mean? Do you mean switch statements or is this referring to something else?

Oops, just checked the page source, and indeed this refers to switch statements. Sorry!

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:35:40 -0700, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.029.zip
>
>This starts laying the foundation for multiprogramming support:
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.013.zip

Nice release.

On the D2 Change Log, download latest alpha compiler points to the
wrong zip file.
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.010.zip


Also, http://www.digitalmars.com/d/download.html requires updating.

Gide

Pretty wild stuff :) Thanks!

-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak
http://h3.team0xf.com/
h3/h3r3tic on #D freenode

davidl wrote:
> 在 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:35:40 +0800，Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> 写道:
> 
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.029.zip
>>
>> This starts laying the foundation for multiprogramming support:
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.013.zip
> 
> nice opDot feature in 2.0.
> 
> Though sometimes on windows, people need some unchecked opDot calling.

You mean, there are situations in which you want to be sure that you're using opDot and some in which you want to be sure you're not? The former, you can just write "foo.opDot.x", but not the latter.

I wonder how this works with overloads, too.

> Consider ActiveX stuff.
> 
> People are not always want to have to create their own bindings... especially for some R&D test.
> 
> myActiveXObject.Some_Func_Can_be_Determinated_at_runtime();
> myActiveXObject.Some_Compile_Time_Unchecked_Var = 3;
> 
> with current opDot, we are still not able to do so.
> 
> Yet current opDot looks cleaner.
> 
> I feel it's kinda dilemma...

You mean, some sort of dynamic function call system? Like opDot(char[]) so you can do:
auto x = foo.bar; // calls foo.opDot("bar");

>Bugzilla 1741: crash on associative array with static array as index type<

This bugfix will probably save me lot of problems (and code), thank you.
For a future release of D 1.x I hope to see the module system too fixed (currently not in bugzilla), that may solve another big chunk of my problems.


Christopher Wright:
> You mean, some sort of dynamic function call system? Like opDot(char[])
> so you can do:
> auto x = foo.bar; // calls foo.opDot("bar");

As you know Python has the built-in methods __getattr__() and __getattribute__():
http://docs.python.org/ref/attribute-access.html
http://docs.python.org/ref/new-style-attribute-access.html
They are useful, but they are probably more fit in a dynamic language with a shell interface.
I have used them, once in a while:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/409000
But I don't know where I can use them in D yet...

Bye,
bearophile

Walter Bright wrote:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.029.zip
> 
> This starts laying the foundation for multiprogramming support:
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.013.zip

TLS huh?  Nice!  So what will replace the volatile statement?  As it is, that was the only safe way to perform lock-free operations in D.


Sean