http://gdcmac.sourceforge.net/ - "gdcmac 0.17"

Now *requires* Mac OS X 10.3 + Xcode Tools 1.5,
or Mac OS X 10.4 + Xcode Tools 2.2 (explicitly)

Might do a "poor man's" Mac build too, later on ?
(to come with a bundled GCC, for *any* Mac OS X)

--anders

PS.
As usual there's ZIP too, if you're scared of DMG.
Also hosting (a mirror of) the original tarballs...

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> http://gdcmac.sourceforge.net/ - "gdcmac 0.17"
> 
Goodie, mumsfillibabba and such :).

As a Pascal-lover I use nested functions quite allot, so now dLISP can once more be what it is supposed to.

> Now *requires* Mac OS X 10.3 + Xcode Tools 1.5,
> or Mac OS X 10.4 + Xcode Tools 2.2 (explicitly)
> 
I better upgrade to 2.2 at home too soo. The FreePascal folks better keep up their work. And besides I have come to use D more then Pascal. Even though I still think D lacks some features from Pascal, but that is a rant for another post :).

regards
	Fredrik Olsson

Fredrik Olsson wrote:

> I better upgrade to 2.2 at home too soo. The FreePascal folks better keep up their work. And besides I have come to use D more then Pascal. Even though I still think D lacks some features from Pascal, but that is a rant for another post :).

I got tired of the bugs in Xcode 2.0-2.1, so might as well require 2.2 ?
(the GCC 4.0.0 has some pretty *severe* crashing bugs, for certain code)

It's still possible to do a "gdc-3.3" version for Mac OS 10.4 too, if there's enough demand for such a version. But my recommendation is 4.0

--anders

PS.
If you like Pascal then you might be looking in the wrong direction ;-)
I think there is a "GPC" as well ? (GNU Pascal compiler, gnu-pascal.de)

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Fredrik Olsson wrote:
> 
<snip>
> PS.
> If you like Pascal then you might be looking in the wrong direction ;-)
> I think there is a "GPC" as well ? (GNU Pascal compiler, gnu-pascal.de)
I know, but I prefer FreePascal over GNU Pascal as they have better Object Pascal/Delphi compatibility. But I prefer D over Pascal for a slightly more compact syntax, and C has spoiled me with case sensitivity.

But I still lack ranges (Which D almost have, but only for slices), and sets. Sets can be emulated with associative arrays, even the "in" keywords makes sense. Ranges is a bit harder.

Having ranges and sets part of the core language makes sense as it is so useful, and fits well with the rational of having strings and complex numbers.

Oh well...
	Fredrik Olsson