The large volume of bug fixes is because a lot of people contributed patches. Thanks!

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.042.zip


http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.027.zip

"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:gqutln$1q9u$1@digitalmars.com...
> The large volume of bug fixes is because a lot of people contributed patches. Thanks!
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.042.zip
>
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.027.zip

On April 1? What is this, a joke? ;-)

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On April 1? What is this, a joke? ;-) 

It's still March here!

Walter Bright wrote:
> The large volume of bug fixes is because a lot of people contributed patches. Thanks!
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.042.zip
> 
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.027.zip


main.d => main
Error: version identifier 'Posix' is reserved and cannot be set
Command /home/oaalto/D/dsss/bin/rebuild returned with code 256, aborting.
Error: Command failed, aborting.

Wasn't this supposed to be fixed for 1.042 too?

Olli Aalto wrote:
> main.d => main
> Error: version identifier 'Posix' is reserved and cannot be set
> Command /home/oaalto/D/dsss/bin/rebuild returned with code 256, aborting.
> Error: Command failed, aborting.
> 
> Wasn't this supposed to be fixed for 1.042 too?

Yes. I goofed that up. Sorry.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Yes. I goofed that up. Sorry.

I uploaded a patched version to fix it.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Yes. I goofed that up. Sorry.
> 
> I uploaded a patched version to fix it.

Works now. Thank you.

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:21:59 -0700, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

>The large volume of bug fixes is because a lot of people contributed patches. Thanks!
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.042.zip
>
>
>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.027.zip

Great! Does it mean opDot is deprecated?

在 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:43:57 +0800，Max Samukha <samukha@voliacable.com.removethis> 写道:

> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:21:59 -0700, Walter Bright
> <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> The large volume of bug fixes is because a lot of people contributed
>> patches. Thanks!
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.042.zip
>>
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.027.zip
>
> Great! Does it mean opDot is deprecated?

why not make opDot some compile time stuff?

class V
{
    opDot(char[] method, ...)
    {
        // runtime lib to figure what the method is, and then call it with vararg!
    }
}

this can be particular useful for COM

consider:

UnknownComponent.itsparticularMethod(34,"adf"); <-- bind every com component is troublesome and waste time.
The runtime can use typelib info to give us something useful

Also this can help DDL to be further more useful.

I don't need to bind my plugin.
I just directly call myplugin.mymethod("asdf");
The opdot will eventually resolve the mymethod in the plugin, then call it!
I will really enjoy to see this happen.

Max Samukha wrote:
> Great! Does it mean opDot is deprecated?

Yes.