Don wrote:
> That's also caused by the other half of the patch for 400, in class.c.

There's a patch up now for it.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:24:18 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> Don wrote:
>> That's also caused by the other half of the patch for 400, in class.c.
> 
> There's a patch up now for it.

Thanks, I've build dmd from trunk and I've got
Tango and QTD (D1) compiled.

Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 31.12.2009 19:48, schrieb Walter Bright:
>> Happy New Year!
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.054.zip
>>
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.038.zip
>>
>> Many thanks to the numerous people who contributed to this update.
> 
> Great to see so many fixes that make the language much more hassle-free to use - especially for newcomers that hit such things for the first time. However, I have at least one blocker problem in this release:
> 
> Because of the now disallowed struct initializers for structs with constructors (bug 3476), there is no way to use those structs as static immutable values as the constructors are not CTFE processable.
> 
> (-> Error: cannot evaluate ((X __ctmp2;
> ) , __ctmp2).this() at compile time)
> 
> This problem has been there since struct constructors have been introduced. A quick search on bugzilla did not return a matching
> bug report, only some other issues related to struct constructors. I'll file a bug report if noone else knows of any existing one (technically this would be an 'improvement', but I think it is a really important issue).

Bug 3535.
There are still several bugs related to struct constructors.
Workaround is to use static opCall instead of a constructor.

Thanks a lot everybody. Also special thanks to Don for his increased involvement and stepping up to help with some serious bugfixing!

It feels like D2 is becoming more solid and usable every release in spite of major features still being added.

Happy new year! It will be an exciting one for D.