On 2/11/10 06:11, strtr wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>>
>> At the moment, no. Currently, Tango is D1-only, but druntime (the thing that
>> is supposed to allow Tango and Phobos to play nice together on a single
>> installation) is D2-only. So once Tango is ported to D2, I'd imagine there
>> will probably be a Tango+DMD2 bundle that will include phobos and all your
>> tango *and* phobos calls should work fine. But on D1, a DMD installation is
>> either a tango one or a phobos one (unless you use some ugly hacks).
>>
>
> I thought Tangobos was packaged in and would handle all Phobos calls without much hassle.
>

Does it still work? Is it up to date ?

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:07:29 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

> On 2/11/10 06:11, strtr wrote:
>> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>>>
>>> At the moment, no. Currently, Tango is D1-only, but druntime (the thing that is supposed to allow Tango and Phobos to play nice together on a single installation) is D2-only. So once Tango is ported to D2, I'd imagine there will probably be a Tango+DMD2 bundle that will include phobos and all your tango *and* phobos calls should work fine. But on D1, a DMD installation is either a tango one or a phobos one (unless you use some ugly hacks).
>>>
>>>
>> I thought Tangobos was packaged in and would handle all Phobos calls without much hassle.
>>
>>
> Does it still work? Is it up to date ?

Afaik, it's far from being up-to-date.

On 10.02.2010 22:10, Richard Webb wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> 
>> "downs" <default_357-line@yahoo.de> wrote in message news:hkusr4$hob$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> </obscure nerd culture joke>
>>
>> Neon Genesis?
> 
> Higurashi?

Ayup ;)

(Recently watched it. It rules. )

On 11-feb-10, at 15:14, Moritz Warning wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:07:29 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
>> On 2/11/10 06:11, strtr wrote:
>>> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At the moment, no. Currently, Tango is D1-only, but druntime (the
>>>> thing that is supposed to allow Tango and Phobos to play nice together
>>>> on a single installation) is D2-only. So once Tango is ported to D2,
>>>> I'd imagine there will probably be a Tango+DMD2 bundle that will
>>>> include phobos and all your tango *and* phobos calls should work fine.
>>>> But on D1, a DMD installation is either a tango one or a phobos one
>>>> (unless you use some ugly hacks).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I thought Tangobos was packaged in and would handle all Phobos calls
>>> without much hassle.
>>>
>>>
>> Does it still work? Is it up to date ?
>
> Afaik, it's far from being up-to-date.

yes, I had made it worka long time ago with gdc and dmd, but since then tango changed a lot and ldc was never kept into account, so I think that tangobos is not really an option.

Fawzi

On 11/02/2010 01:12, Nathan Tuggy wrote:
> On 2010-02-10 14:18, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "div0"<div0@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
>> news:hkv6tn$17rs$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> 4. Windows: Create a batch script "Switch to DMD Phobos.bat" that
>>>> deletes
>>>> the "dmd" directory tree and then copies "dmd-phobos" to "dmd". Do the
>>>> same
>>>> for Tango, and then run either of those when you want to switch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or use junction instead.
>>>
>>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896768.aspx
>>>
>>> Rather handy.
>>>
>>
>> That's awesome. Thanks. I had no idea windows could do that, and I was
>> just
>> thinking even the other day that I wished that it could. Too bad it's
>> only
>> for directories, not files, but still, that should be pretty nice to
>> have.
>
> Files? You want it for files too? Have I got a command for you:
> fsutil hardlink create <new filename> <existing filename>
> (<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc788097%28WS.10%29.aspx>)
>
> You'll need administrator privileges to run it (because most of its
> other functionality is very low-level, journaling and MFT-sizing and
> stuff like that), but it looks like it works on XP and up (2000 doesn't
> appear to support it, but I can't tell for sure). And, of course, it
> only works on NTFS partitions, but that should be a given.


Starting with Vista, MS exposed the ability to have symlinks and hardlinks on windows, just run "help mklink" in a cmd.exe.

In reality NTFS supported this for a long time now (IIRC, since circa 2000) but the problem is that the windows shell/cmd.exe is always late at providing access to new NTFS features - they're always late by at least one version of windows so this is why you can't do that on XP even though the NTFS version that comes with XP does support it.

"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hl204m$m8g$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> Starting with Vista, MS exposed the ability to have symlinks and hardlinks on windows, just run "help mklink" in a cmd.exe.
>
> In reality NTFS supported this for a long time now (IIRC, since circa 2000) but the problem is that the windows shell/cmd.exe is always late at providing access to new NTFS features - they're always late by at least one version of windows so this is why you can't do that on XP even though the NTFS version that comes with XP does support it.

Oh, so at least in theory, symlinks should still be possible on 2k/XP given a third-party tool to manage them and avoidance of using them on the command-line and in batch files?

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Yigal Chripun" <yigal100@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hl204m$m8g$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Starting with Vista, MS exposed the ability to have symlinks and hardlinks on windows, just run "help mklink" in a cmd.exe.
>>
>> In reality NTFS supported this for a long time now (IIRC, since circa 2000) but the problem is that the windows shell/cmd.exe is always late at providing access to new NTFS features - they're always late by at least one version of windows so this is why you can't do that on XP even though the NTFS version that comes with XP does support it.
> 
> Oh, so at least in theory, symlinks should still be possible on 2k/XP given a third-party tool to manage them and avoidance of using them on the command-line and in batch files?

Given that SysInternals had a tool for doing hard links on 2000+, but no tool for doing symlinks, I doubt it.

I recall reading something about how symlinks were new to Vista specifically; not simply a tool to make them, but something changed in NTFS or the system's support for it.

On 2/11/2010 9:14 AM, Moritz Warning wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:07:29 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
>> On 2/11/10 06:11, strtr wrote:
>>> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At the moment, no. Currently, Tango is D1-only, but druntime (the
>>>> thing that is supposed to allow Tango and Phobos to play nice together
>>>> on a single installation) is D2-only. So once Tango is ported to D2,
>>>> I'd imagine there will probably be a Tango+DMD2 bundle that will
>>>> include phobos and all your tango *and* phobos calls should work fine.
>>>> But on D1, a DMD installation is either a tango one or a phobos one
>>>> (unless you use some ugly hacks).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I thought Tangobos was packaged in and would handle all Phobos calls
>>> without much hassle.
>>>
>>>
>> Does it still work? Is it up to date ?
>
> Afaik, it's far from being up-to-date.

Several months ago I got it up to date to work with the DMD + Tango 0.99.8 bundle (and committed my changes), and I'll check and fix it against Tango 0.99.9 when I get a chance, but I've been very busy lately so it may be weeks until I get to it.

I'm not sure how it fares with GDC.

On 12/02/2010 03:36, Daniel Keep wrote:
>
>
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Yigal Chripun"<yigal100@gmail.com>  wrote in message
>> news:hl204m$m8g$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> Starting with Vista, MS exposed the ability to have symlinks and hardlinks
>>> on windows, just run "help mklink" in a cmd.exe.
>>>
>>> In reality NTFS supported this for a long time now (IIRC, since circa
>>> 2000) but the problem is that the windows shell/cmd.exe is always late at
>>> providing access to new NTFS features - they're always late by at least
>>> one version of windows so this is why you can't do that on XP even though
>>> the NTFS version that comes with XP does support it.
>>
>> Oh, so at least in theory, symlinks should still be possible on 2k/XP given
>> a third-party tool to manage them and avoidance of using them on the
>> command-line and in batch files?
>
> Given that SysInternals had a tool for doing hard links on 2000+, but no
> tool for doing symlinks, I doubt it.
>
> I recall reading something about how symlinks were new to Vista
> specifically; not simply a tool to make them, but something changed in
> NTFS or the system's support for it.

http://homepage1.nifty.com/emk/symlink.html

I think this provides the ability to have symlinks on windows XP. I'm not 100% sure since it's in Japanese.

"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hl33en$2p6d$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 12/02/2010 03:36, Daniel Keep wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> "Yigal Chripun"<yigal100@gmail.com>  wrote in message news:hl204m$m8g$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>> Starting with Vista, MS exposed the ability to have symlinks and
>>>> hardlinks
>>>> on windows, just run "help mklink" in a cmd.exe.
>>>>
>>>> In reality NTFS supported this for a long time now (IIRC, since circa
>>>> 2000) but the problem is that the windows shell/cmd.exe is always late
>>>> at
>>>> providing access to new NTFS features - they're always late by at least
>>>> one version of windows so this is why you can't do that on XP even
>>>> though
>>>> the NTFS version that comes with XP does support it.
>>>
>>> Oh, so at least in theory, symlinks should still be possible on 2k/XP
>>> given
>>> a third-party tool to manage them and avoidance of using them on the
>>> command-line and in batch files?
>>
>> Given that SysInternals had a tool for doing hard links on 2000+, but no tool for doing symlinks, I doubt it.
>>
>> I recall reading something about how symlinks were new to Vista specifically; not simply a tool to make them, but something changed in NTFS or the system's support for it.
>
> http://homepage1.nifty.com/emk/symlink.html
>
> I think this provides the ability to have symlinks on windows XP. I'm not 100% sure since it's in Japanese.

If you run it through google translater, and (attempt to) read through the "Symbolic misconception that Windows NT/2000/XP is available in" section, it sounds like he saying that pre-vista could only do hardlinks and junctions but that some people (maybe the author?) had been inaccurately calling them "symlinks" anyway, thus causing confusion. But of course, that's assuming that the translation is accurate and that I'm actually interpreting the translation correctly.