www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - D 2.0

reply Arth Lloyd Flores <floresarthlloyd gmail.com> writes:
Is D 2.0 still in alpha?

-- 
-Arth
Jul 24 2010
parent reply Trass3r <un known.com> writes:
 Is D 2.0 still in alpha?


It's in beta. Somewhat.
Jul 24 2010
next sibling parent Arth Lloyd Flores <floresarthlloyd gmail.com> writes:
--e0cb4e8878e3546e4c048c2c3f56
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Nice one.. Thanks for the reply Trass3r...

I'm so excited [?]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Trass3r <un known.com> wrote:


 Is D 2.0 still in alpha?


 It's in beta. Somewhat.




-- 
-Arth

--e0cb4e8878e3546e4c048c2c3f56
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


 excited=A0<img src=3D"cid:360 goomoji.gmail" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; mar=
gin-right: 0.2ex; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.2ex; vertical-align: m=
iddle; " goomoji=3D"360"><br>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Trass3r <sp=
an dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:un known.com">un known.com</a>&gt;</sp=
an> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class=3D"im"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Is D 2.0 still in alpha?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>

</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>-Arth<br>
</div>

--e0cb4e8878e3546e4c048c2c3f56--



 Jul 24 2010



prev sibling  parent reply BCS <none anon.com>  writes:


Hello Trass3r,


 Is D 2.0 still in alpha?
 


 It's in beta. Somewhat.
 


The language? More like an RC. DMD? Beta.

-- 
... <IXOYE><



 Jul 24 2010



 next sibling parent reply Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com>  writes:


On 25/07/10 5:21 AM, BCS wrote:

 Hello Trass3r,


 Is D 2.0 still in alpha?


 It's in beta. Somewhat.


 The language? More like an RC. DMD? Beta.


And Phobos, I'd say, is still in alpha. Half the simple stuff in there 
doesn't work, never mind anything that's complex. e.g. Array!int causes 
a compile error, and most ranges that are meant to be forward ranges, 
aren't.



 Jul 25 2010



  parent  levenshtein <distance fun.org>  writes:


Peter Alexander Wrote:


 On 25/07/10 5:21 AM, BCS wrote:

 Hello Trass3r,


 Is D 2.0 still in alpha?


 It's in beta. Somewhat.


 The language? More like an RC. DMD? Beta.


 
 And Phobos, I'd say, is still in alpha. Half the simple stuff in there 
 doesn't work, never mind anything that's complex. e.g. Array!int causes 
 a compile error, and most ranges that are meant to be forward ranges, 
 aren't.


At least it doesn't have any license issues.



 Jul 25 2010



prev sibling  parent reply Trass3r <un known.com>  writes:


 The language? More like an RC.


Well typedef is to be removed, delete has pretty much been deprecated as I  
heard.
Now they seem to intend to remove scope too (didn't read the topic  
thoroughly though, I'm sick of all those "remove every single keyword  
there is in the language" threads)



 Jul 25 2010



  parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com>  writes:


Trass3r:

 Now they seem to intend to remove scope too (didn't read the topic  
 thoroughly though, I'm sick of all those "remove every single keyword  
 there is in the language" threads)


The Scope!() replacement for scope is not good enough yet:
1) The compiler doesn't test for escapes (as dmd currently naively does for
scoped objects);
2) There is no way to denote a class that must be scoped;
3) There is this problem: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4500

I think Andrei's (wrong) strategy is to remove things first, and then try to
invent ways to patch the holes left by the removed stuff. So far the idea of
removing scope is a failure, it produces more problems than it solves.

Bye,
bearophile



 Jul 25 2010



  parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  writes:


On 07/25/2010 08:22 AM, bearophile wrote:

 Trass3r:

 Now they seem to intend to remove scope too (didn't read the topic
 thoroughly though, I'm sick of all those "remove every single
 keyword there is in the language" threads)


 The Scope!() replacement for scope is not good enough yet: 1) The
 compiler doesn't test for escapes (as dmd currently naively does for
 scoped objects); 2) There is no way to denote a class that must be
 scoped; 3) There is this problem:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4500

 I think Andrei's (wrong) strategy is to remove things first, and then
 try to invent ways to patch the holes left by the removed stuff. So
 far the idea of removing scope is a failure, it produces more
 problems than it solves.


The issue is that the scope keyword is impossible to check against 
escapes without extra additions to the language (e.g. marking a method 
or a function parameter as scoped). Such an uncheckable pattern is best 
left to a library feature, it doesn't deserve a keyword. I agree that 
scoped() has weaknesses that should be looked into, but scope must go.

Andrei



 Jul 25 2010



 next sibling parent reply Tomek =?UTF-8?B?U293acWEc2tp?= <just ask.me>  writes:


Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 but scope must go


But scope(exit) stays, right?



 Jul 25 2010



  parent reply BCS <none anon.com>  writes:


Hello Tomek,


 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 

 but scope must go
 


 But scope(exit) stays, right?
 


Totally different thing. :)

-- 
... <IXOYE><



 Jul 25 2010



 next sibling parent  Tomek =?UTF-8?B?U293acWEc2tp?= <just ask.me>  writes:


BCS wrote:


 Hello Tomek,
 

 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 

 but scope must go
 


 But scope(exit) stays, right?
 


 
 Totally different thing. :)


Phew.. He did say "it doesn't deserve a keyword" so I got scared ;)



 Jul 25 2010



prev sibling  parent  Olivier Pisano <olivier.pisano laposte.net>  writes:


Le 25/07/2010 22:40, BCS a écrit :

 Hello Tomek,


 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 but scope must go


 But scope(exit) stays, right?


 Totally different thing. :)


I must admit I had the same reaction as Tomek while reading Andrei's 
post :) I am relieved scope (exit|failure|success) is not on the removal 
list.

Olivier



 Jul 25 2010



prev sibling  parent  Michael Rynn <michaelrynn optusnet.com.au>  writes:


 The issue is that the scope keyword is impossible to check against
 escapes without extra additions to the language (e.g. marking a method
 or a function parameter as scoped). Such an uncheckable pattern is best
 left to a library feature, it doesn't deserve a keyword. I agree that
 scoped() has weaknesses that should be looked into, but scope must go.
 
 Andrei


In D2.0 I like the scope storage for optionally allocating a class on the 
stack, and found a use for it.

The class was  specially designed to be aware of its storage status. 
	class FlexyStore {
	...
	bool isScoped_;
	...

If its not going to be a key word, I would still like to have the 
facility optimized, and if allocating a class on the stack is out, I 
would redesign and use a struct.

Not all patterns may be fully checkable at compile time. Might as well 
ask if any particular program halts. Use with caution. A language is not 
complete if you cannot hang yourself with it.

I did not like putting this as a class property.

scope class RigidStore {

}  

I have difficulty finding online any clear statement of intent, 
rationale, extent, probability or time frame of removal of the keyword.
We must be still in the experimental can do everything with templates 
phase.  

There are hints on the news group, but an update central documentation of 
future directions. For instance there is a "Future Directions" URL in the 
sidebar menu that has not changed for years, mentions template 
inheritance, array operations, without details. At face value its very un-
impressive, looks like a web page that was bookmarked and then never 
worked on.  There is a more comprehensive D2.0 enhancements, that 
describes Core language changes, but does not mention scope storage.  


It would be good as a community to have the changers publish, explain 
rumours of oncoming changes better.  External communication should 
explicate some things, since the internal brain modules of our changes 
are pressured to communicate and think more, and I can adjust my future 
expectations.

Michael.



 Jul 28 2010