Sorry about the nonsensical reply, the web interface was acting up... this is the intended reply.
On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 02:05:51 UTC, Manu wrote:
Why didn't you go with DMD-Win32? Because of OMF? implib and/or objconv is a hassle but probably less of a hassle than using the nascent DMD-Win64.The only compiler you can realistically use productively in windows is
DMD-Win64, and that doesn't work out of the box.
Although I'm not convinced auto-completion is a vital feature (Microsoft's C++ IntelliSense is shit too), I agree that any time spent on custom parsers and best-effort semantic analysis is a complete waste of time. The only semantic analysis engine that is going to be sufficiently good for D is one from a compiler front-end. Apart from DMD, it's worth taking a look at SDC for this.Overwhelmingly, the biggest complaint was a lack of symbolic information to
assist with auto-completion. Visual-D tries valiantly, but it falls quite
short of the mark.
This goes back to the threads where the IDE guys are writing their own
parsers, when really, DMD should be able to be built as a lib, with an API
designed for using DMD as a lib/plugin.
dmd2\windows\bin\d.chmsome windows dev's want a CHM that looks like
the typical Microsoft doc's people are used to. Those that aren't familiar
with the CHM viewer; it's just HTML but with a nice index + layout tree.
I'm not sure this is a bug. How do you default initialize an array of structs you don't know the .init values of?Yes, we hit DMD bugs, like the one with opaque structs which required
extensive work-arounds.
struct MyStruct;
MyStruct*[] = new MyStruct*[n];