www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - DMD 0.100 release

reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Fixed break introduced in bit struct members.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Aug 20 2004
parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
In article <cg6kos$19a5$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

Fixed break introduced in bit struct members.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


Oh, no! What happened? Did DMD travel back in time?! 

Or maybe this was a typo!? Surely, you meant D 1.00! Everyone knows that 0.100 <
0.99? Argggg! The insanity!

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)

jcc7
Aug 20 2004
next sibling parent reply "Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
LOL!

At least we're going to have 799 revisions before we have to listen to that
discussion again. :)



"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message
news:cg6llb$1a0t$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In article <cg6kos$19a5$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

Fixed break introduced in bit struct members.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


 Oh, no! What happened? Did DMD travel back in time?!

 Or maybe this was a typo!? Surely, you meant D 1.00! Everyone knows that 0.100
<
 0.99? Argggg! The insanity!

 (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)

 jcc7
Aug 20 2004
parent clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Matthew wrote:

 LOL!
 
 At least we're going to have 799 revisions before we have to listen to that
discussion again. :)
 
 


I do hope we get version 1.0 before version .899!

<subliminal ghostly message>
*Walter* ... *add loader.d to libphobos.a*
</subliminal ghostly message>
Aug 21 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:

 In article <cg6kos$19a5$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
 

Fixed break introduced in bit struct members.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


 
 
 Oh, no! What happened? Did DMD travel back in time?! 
 
 Or maybe this was a typo!? Surely, you meant D 1.00! Everyone knows that 0.100
<
 0.99? Argggg! The insanity!
 
 (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)


One step forward, 900 steps back!

  -- andy
Aug 20 2004
parent Martin <Martin_member pathlink.com> writes:
We will get lot better 1.00 nothing else. 
And what do we complain, D is already usable,
I am using it for a commercial program(on my on risk ofcourse, but we have to
start somewhare - doing real application is the best way to test the language.
I just hope that when errors pop out, then Walter is quick enough to fix them.
In this case he was!),





In article <cg6n9h$1b04$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...

J C Calvarese wrote:

 In article <cg6kos$19a5$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
 

Fixed break introduced in bit struct members.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


 
 
 Oh, no! What happened? Did DMD travel back in time?! 
 
 Or maybe this was a typo!? Surely, you meant D 1.00! Everyone knows that 0.100
<
 0.99? Argggg! The insanity!
 
 (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)


One step forward, 900 steps back!

  -- andy
Aug 21 2004
prev sibling parent Trejkaz Xaoza <trejkaz xaoza.net> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:

 Oh, no! What happened? Did DMD travel back in time?!
 
 Or maybe this was a typo!? Surely, you meant D 1.00! Everyone knows that
 0.100 < 0.99? Argggg! The insanity!
 
 (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)


I was previous curious as to whether DMD was going to use a "standard"
numbering scheme, or a decimal numbering scheme.

It's comforting to see that it's using a standard numbering scheme, but at
the same time it's unsettling, because it means more changes are on the
way. ;-)

TX

-- 
             Email: Trejkaz Xaoza <trejkaz xaoza.net>
          Web site: http://xaoza.net/trejkaz/
         Jabber ID: trejkaz jabber.xaoza.net
   GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F  A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
Aug 21 2004