A whole lotta library improvements.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.027.zip

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.011.zip

I had planned on doing struct destructors for this update, but they are not done yet.

"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:fpf9bk$2upn$1@digitalmars.com...
>A whole lotta library improvements.
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.027.zip
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.011.zip
>
> I had planned on doing struct destructors for this update, but they are not done yet.

.tupleof can now access private fields of a struct/class

Any reason why this was fixed in D2 but not in D1?  My binding library is still broken because of it..

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> .tupleof can now access private fields of a struct/class
> 
> Any reason why this was fixed in D2 but not in D1?  My binding library is still broken because of it.. 

I guess that depends on if it's an enhancement or a bug fix. Obviously, you consider it the latter :-)

"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:fpfco5$7j5$1@digitalmars.com...
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> .tupleof can now access private fields of a struct/class
>>
>> Any reason why this was fixed in D2 but not in D1?  My binding library is still broken because of it..
>
> I guess that depends on if it's an enhancement or a bug fix. Obviously, you consider it the latter :-)

Obviously I do ;)  Especially since it's not mentioned anywhere in the spec.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:06:31 +0200, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> A whole lotta library improvements.
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.027.zip
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.011.zip
>
> I had planned on doing struct destructors for this update, but they are not done yet.

That looks great! However, D1's Phobos did not get any of the fixes?

Also, it seems that bug 1815 doesn't belong in D1's changelog.

-- 
Best regards,
 Vladimir                          mailto:thecybershadow@gmail.com

Reply to Walter,

> A whole lotta library improvements.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.027.zip
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.011.zip
> I had planned on doing struct destructors for this update, but they
> are not done yet.
> 

Is there now some way to force dmd to output the link command?

BCS wrote:
> Is there now some way to force dmd to output the link command?

-v

Reply to Walter,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Is there now some way to force dmd to output the link command?
>> 
> -v
> 

:)

Wow what a huge changelist for the std lib, awesome !

But i wonder about one thing:

[CODE]

class Foo {
  int foo() {
      synchronized(this){
          return 8;
      }
  }
}

[/CODE]

why does 2.011 in contrast to the previous 2.010 warn me with "warning - main.d(3): function main.Foo.foo no return at end of function" ? why is this a probem suddenly ? i have plenty of this warnings spit out in my project now ;(


Walter Bright schrieb:
> A whole lotta library improvements.
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.027.zip
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.011.zip
>
> I had planned on doing struct destructors for this update, but they are not done yet.

Extrawurst wrote:
> Wow what a huge changelist for the std lib, awesome !
> 
> But i wonder about one thing:
> 
> [CODE]
> 
> class Foo {
>   int foo() {
>       synchronized(this){
>           return 8;
>       }
>   }
> }
> 
> [/CODE]
> 
> why does 2.011 in contrast to the previous 2.010 warn me with "warning - main.d(3): function main.Foo.foo no return at end of function" ? why is this a probem suddenly ? i have plenty of this warnings spit out in my project now ;(

Because I reimplemented the flow analysis, and it looks like there's a bug in it :-(