We're now halfway there again ... well at least halfway towards 0.300....

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PendingPeeves

(Switching to linking to prowiki.org rather than wikiservice.at per Helmut's suggestion....)


The decision was made to get rid of bit as a basic type.  This is about the second time that a change to the language with significant effect on existing code has been proposed in one post on the newsgroup and then implemented in the next version.  Doing this has made two of the pending peeves irrelevant.

At least it's not the worst instance I've seen where instead of filling in a hole, one breaks off the piece containing the hole.


Does anybody remember when, back at 0.93, Walter said:
"Barring a very, very, compelling case, this is it for 1.0 language features.  There are a lot more things I want to do, but this has got to be enough for 1.0."

I lose count of the number of new features that have been added since then.  Most recently, there has been the scope(exit) scope(success) scope(failure) statements.  While they're a nice idea, I must admit that adding new features has detracted from the goal of getting D up to scratch.


The "Covariance doesn't work with interfaces" issue was wrongly marked as done.  In fact, only one of the interface covariance issues is fixed.  The other one is still there.

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/1726
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/3287
http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65

And the spec has been cleaned up in a few places over the last few days.  For example, array operations have finally been *mostly* removed from the spec.


And the issue of translating the Windows API headers has cropped up again.  There have been a number of efforts to do this, but they all have their imperfections as far as I can tell.  I've started another effort that'll hopefully be the best of them all....

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.announce/3194

Once this is done, then I suppose we'll be ready to put it in as std.c.windows instead of the translation of a tiny fragment of the API that's there at the moment....


It seems that people are more than ready to take into their own hands some of the things that Walter hasn't bothered to do in such fields as tracking bugs.  First there was DStress, and then there was Bugzilla.

http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/

(Next question: What will Bugzilla eventually do to the future of pending peeves?)

Keep up the good work!

Until next time....

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> 
> 
> And the issue of translating the Windows API headers has cropped up again.  There have been a number of efforts to do this, but they all have their imperfections as far as I can tell.  I've started another effort that'll hopefully be the best of them all....
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.announce/3194

For Windows headers to be included in a standard library distribution, they *must* be based on public domain header files.  As much as I'd love improved Windows functionality, I won't include headers in Ares that violate the MS copyright, and I think Walter feels the same for Phobos.


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>
>> And the issue of translating the Windows API headers has cropped up again.  There have been a number of efforts to do this, but they all have their imperfections as far as I can tell.  I've started another effort that'll hopefully be the best of them all....
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.announce/3194
> 
> For Windows headers to be included in a standard library distribution, they *must* be based on public domain header files.  As much as I'd love improved Windows functionality, I won't include headers in Ares that violate the MS copyright, and I think Walter feels the same for Phobos.

I heard Don the first time.  That's why I stated in that thread that anyone is more than welcome to use MinGW or similar to contribute to my effort.

I still don't get the whole M$ copyright issue.  It's as if M$ was trying to stop anybody from programming in anything but C(++).

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>> And the issue of translating the Windows API headers has cropped up again.  There have been a number of efforts to do this, but they all have their imperfections as far as I can tell.  I've started another effort that'll hopefully be the best of them all....
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.announce/3194
>>
>> For Windows headers to be included in a standard library distribution, they *must* be based on public domain header files.  As much as I'd love improved Windows functionality, I won't include headers in Ares that violate the MS copyright, and I think Walter feels the same for Phobos.
> 
> I heard Don the first time.  That's why I stated in that thread that anyone is more than welcome to use MinGW or similar to contribute to my effort.
> 
> I still don't get the whole M$ copyright issue.  It's as if M$ was trying to stop anybody from programming in anything but C(++).

I agree that it's completely silly, but we must assume that it could happen.  I'm certainly not willing to pay the legal fees to fight MS in court, and neither do I want to be forced to strip modules out of the library later on and possibly be forced to take production code offline until a suitable replacement could be found.


Sean

In article <dvs9eh$1hue$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
>

>I still don't get the whole M$ copyright issue.  It's as if M$ was trying to stop anybody from programming in anything but C(++).
>

Whether it was deliberate or a side-effect of sloppy licensing, the end result is that Microsoft has made it very hard to code against the Win32 runtime without using their compiler/IDE.  Its not so much that MS doesn't want you to use C++, they just don't care how hard life is for you if you don't back their compiler.

The "coup de gras" of such offensive behavior from MS would have to be with the availability of the ATL.  In order to work with certain components (say, anything WTL based), or code with certain libraries, one needs a copy of the ATL libraries.  Unfortunately, the only way to get a hold of these is to purchase a copy of Visual C++(6 or better).  The ATL libs are not listed as redistributable components, so this is the only option for legitimate development.

- EricAnderton at yahoo

"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:dvs7u2$1fmf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>
>>
>> And the issue of translating the Windows API headers has cropped up again.  There have been a number of efforts to do this, but they all have their imperfections as far as I can tell.  I've started another effort that'll hopefully be the best of them all....
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.announce/3194
>
> For Windows headers to be included in a standard library distribution, they *must* be based on public domain header files.  As much as I'd love improved Windows functionality, I won't include headers in Ares that violate the MS copyright, and I think Walter feels the same for Phobos.

For gdc, and non-Digital Mars distributions, that's true. But for dmd, I do have a license from Microsoft on the windows header files.

But it would be better if the windows.d files are public domain, then there's no issue at all.

"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dvrhdv$kmm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> (Next question: What will Bugzilla eventually do to the future of pending peeves?)

Rather than maintain scattered lists of bugs, since Brad is doing a great job with bugzilla, and it seems to be catching on, I suggest having Bugzilla be the "master bug list", and that all the pending peeves get posted there.

That'll also make it easy to check the status of the pending peeves in the pp page, just click on the link!

Walter Bright wrote:
> "Sean Kelly" wrote:
>> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>> 
>>> And the issue of translating the Windows API headers has cropped
>>> up again.  There have been a number of efforts to do this, but
>>> they all have their imperfections as far as I can tell.  I've
>>> started another effort that'll hopefully be the best of them
>>> all....
>>> 
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.announce/3194
>>> 
>> For Windows headers to be included in a standard library
>> distribution, they *must* be based on public domain header files.
>> As much as I'd love improved Windows functionality, I won't include
>> headers in Ares that violate the MS copyright, and I think Walter
>> feels the same for Phobos.
> 
> For gdc, and non-Digital Mars distributions, that's true. But for
> dmd, I do have a license from Microsoft on the windows header files.
> 
> But it would be better if the windows.d files are public domain, then
>  there's no issue at all.

IMHO, it would be appropriate if DMD used "genuine" M$ headers, and GDC used PD headers. After all, DMD is a closed-source product, and it comes from an established, single vendor. (So what, if it's free as in beer.) DMD is also the Official D compiler, as in credibility with the suits.

Walter Bright wrote:
> "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dvrhdv$kmm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>> (Next question: What will Bugzilla eventually do to the future of
>> pending peeves?)
> 
> Rather than maintain scattered lists of bugs, since Brad is doing a
> great job with bugzilla, and it seems to be catching on, I suggest
> having Bugzilla be the "master bug list", and that all the pending
> peeves get posted there.
> 
> That'll also make it easy to check the status of the pending peeves
> in the pp page, just click on the link!

Hmm. Then D.bugs should be scrapped?

"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message news:44241192.2030004@nospam.org...
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> That'll also make it easy to check the status of the pending peeves in the pp page, just click on the link!
>
> Hmm. Then D.bugs should be scrapped?

Not at all. Bugzilla doesn't work well as a discussion forum.about bugs in general or particular bugs.