www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - DMD 0.168 release

reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Better array literals.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Oct 02 2006
next sibling parent J Duncan <me nospam.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Better array literals.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html



Thank you soooooo much Walter! Mixin destructors and delegate .ptrs 
sound delicious. Yum!
Oct 02 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Chad J <""gamerChad\" spamIsBad gmail.com"> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Better array literals.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


.ptr and .outer, sweet!

I'm sure I'll be very glad for the improved array literal stuff too when 
I need to use it :)

Thank you very much Walter!
Oct 02 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Better array literals.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


The download link seem to be broken.
ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.zip  downloads a size zero file.
ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.168.zip  work ok.
Oct 02 2006
parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 The download link seem to be broken.
 ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.zip  downloads a size zero file.
 ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.168.zip  work ok.


Should be fixed now.
Oct 03 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Better array literals.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


Yay! Thank you very much, now users of Derelict Free Type and my little 
library can generate some debug info :)
~ Clay
Oct 02 2006
parent Jeremy <phr00t gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Better array literals.

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





Yay! Thank you very much, now users of Derelict Free Type and my little
library can generate some debug info :)
~ Clay


Double yay! :)
Thanks Walter!

- Jeremy
Oct 03 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Kazuhiro Inaba <kiki kmonos.net> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Better array literals.


Cooool!

I think it would be made even better if auto declarations and initialization of
stack variables with array literals can be combinedly used.
Currently, the following program fails to compile:

void main() { auto a = [1,2,3]; }

 test.d(1): Error: cannot infer type from initializer
 test.d(1): cannot implicitly convert expression ([1,2,3]) of type int[3] to int
Oct 03 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Ivan Senji <ivan.senji_REMOVE_ _THIS__gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Better array literals.


Wow they really are much better, also thanks for the outer property.
Oct 03 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent nazo <lovesyao gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Better array literals.


array literal is still very buggy

*Case1: array literal with template
template test(char[] val){
   const char[] test2=val;
}

mixin test!(['a','b','c']);

Case2: array literal with cast and const
const ubyte[] t=cast(ubyte[])['a','b','c'];

Case3: append non-array value
void main(){
   writefln([1,2,3]~2);
}
Oct 03 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Better array literals.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


Could I please have your feedback on this sometime soon?

http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=41978

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.
Oct 03 2006
next sibling parent reply Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 

 Better array literals.

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


 
 
 Could I please have your feedback on this sometime soon?
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digita
mars.D&artnum=41978 


The following questions are possibly way-noobs, but I hope I'm not the 
only one who's understanding might benefit from some info. :-)

Oh, and this is not at all directed towards the proposal: for all I 
know, what I ask here is "the usual way to do it".

On the above refferd page, a couple of things stuck in the eye:

  - Why is Statement split between BasicStatement and the other three, 
and only then the rest of the statements (the subs of BasicStatement)? I 
mean, the reason for this is not immediately obvious.

  - (This probably is a real stupid question:) in IfCondition it says

          'auto' Identifier '=' Expression
          Declarator '=' Expression

one would think that the "auto" line would be sort-of included in the 
Declarator line. In other words, isn't "auto" just a case of 
declaration? (In D overall, not specifically here.)

  - DoStatement has an explicit ';' at the end, the others don't. What 
am I missing here?

  - In what circumstances would a Pragma statement create or need to 
create a new scope? (Yes, I'm ignorant on this...)

---

Stewart, I wish I could say that all the suggestions seemed valid and 
good, but since I just declared myself ignorant, I can't. ;-)

Oh, the existence of both LabelledStatement and LabeledStatement, and so 
on -- does give the impression that this BNF never actually has been 
used as input to a parser generator? I seem to remember that Walter 
doesn't use any of this because his parser is hand-written.

Still, I think it is imperative that we have a valid and usable BNF 
spec! And this spec should be the Canonical authority, should DMD, GDC 
or other compilers or people find issues in D syntax.

Of course we now have the front-end to use for such, but that is IMHO 
not a viable solution for studying the language, for writing third-party 
D compilers, or for automatic tools.
Oct 03 2006
parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Georg Wrede wrote:

 Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:


 Better array literals.

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



 Could I please have your feedback on this sometime soon?

 http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digita
mars.D&artnum=41978 


 
 
 The following questions are possibly way-noobs, but I hope I'm not the 
 only one who's understanding might benefit from some info. :-)
 
 Oh, and this is not at all directed towards the proposal: for all I 
 know, what I ask here is "the usual way to do it".
 
 On the above refferd page, a couple of things stuck in the eye:
 
  - Why is Statement split between BasicStatement and the other three, 
 and only then the rest of the statements (the subs of BasicStatement)? I 
 mean, the reason for this is not immediately obvious.


In order to make the distinction between statements that can be the body 
of a control statement and statements that can't.  Compare the 
definitions of ControlledStatement and CCedStatement.


  - (This probably is a real stupid question:) in IfCondition it says
 
          'auto' Identifier '=' Expression
          Declarator '=' Expression
 
 one would think that the "auto" line would be sort-of included in the 
 Declarator line. In other words, isn't "auto" just a case of 
 declaration? (In D overall, not specifically here.)


The current declaration syntax treats AutoDeclaration separately from 
specific-type declarations.


  - DoStatement has an explicit ';' at the end, the others don't. What am 
 I missing here?


Clarity.

Suppose you saw

     }
     while (condition)
     doSomething();

in the middle of some code.  If DoStatement didn't have a terminating 
';', then you would have to look up, possibly several pages, to find out 
for certain whether the while applies to what precedes or to what follows.


  - In what circumstances would a Pragma statement create or need to 
 create a new scope? (Yes, I'm ignorant on this...)


When the nature of the pragma dictates it.  I'm sure there's plenty of 
potential to invent pragmas with this characteristic.  They just haven't 
been invented yet, at least AFAIK.


 ---
 
 Stewart, I wish I could say that all the suggestions seemed valid and 
 good, but since I just declared myself ignorant, I can't. ;-)
 
 Oh, the existence of both LabelledStatement and LabeledStatement, and so 
 on -- does give the impression that this BNF never actually has been 
 used as input to a parser generator? I seem to remember that Walter 
 doesn't use any of this because his parser is hand-written.


That's my recollection too.


 Still, I think it is imperative that we have a valid and usable BNF 
 spec! And this spec should be the Canonical authority, should DMD, GDC 
 or other compilers or people find issues in D syntax.
 
 Of course we now have the front-end to use for such, but that is IMHO 
 not a viable solution for studying the language, for writing third-party 
 D compilers, or for automatic tools.


I agree.

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.
Oct 03 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Kristian <kjkilpi gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:20:49 +0300, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com>=
  =

wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Better array literals.
  http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html


 Could I please have your feedback on this sometime soon?

 http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=3Dnews.digitalmars.co=


m&group=3Ddigitalmars.D&artnum=3D41978

 Stewart.



I quickly glanced through it, and noticed that some of the reserved word=
s  =

are missing enclosing characters ''. That is, 'else' (in 'IfStatement' a=
nd  =

'CCStatement'), 'while' (in 'DoStatement'), 'try', 'catch', and 'finally=
'.

(Just thought that mentioning this could be helpful.)
Oct 03 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 

 Better array literals.

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


 
 
 Could I please have your feedback on this sometime soon?
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digita
mars.D&artnum=41978 
 
 
 Stewart.
 


Interesting that you should bring this up. I am working on a program 
that  attempts to parse out the BNF sections from the docs and emit them 
in a single file (either HTML without the rest of the stuff or as a BNF 
file for Enki)

When I did it by hand a number of the reductions were named differently 
in different places. I was planing on making a list of these when the 
program get closer to done. Looks like you might have beet me to it. I 
still plan to finish the program as it will make for a good consistency 
check.

This is vary low down on the list of things for Walter to do, but...

There are some places that the same rule is stated twice, once at the 
top, once further down. It wold be nice if the second case was marked up 
differently (something like class="bnf2") to make it easier to discard.
Oct 03 2006
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Better array literals.

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


 
 Could I please have your feedback on this sometime soon?
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digita
mars.D&artnum=41978 


I agree it should be fixed, I just haven't invested the time needed to 
carefully go over it.
Oct 03 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Walter Bright schrieb am 2006-10-03:

 Better array literals.

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


Something is strange with XHTML support:

dmd/src/dmd/html* incorporates Bugzilla 363
dmd/bin/dmd seems to incorporate it only partially(filename: yes, decoding: no)

Test cases:
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/xhtml_tag_01.html
http://dstress.kuehne.cn/run/x/xhtml_tag_02.xhtml

Thomas


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFFIterLK5blCcjpWoRAi6oAKCuC2tuDYgzz8yjOCcCWXpH7S8lJwCfUZuS
UWZOq9bTmYEpMqesqwzBnoo=
=xFU3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Oct 03 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Walter Bright schrieb am 2006-10-03:

 Better array literals.

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


The way issue 385 was fixed is buggy.
If executed, mars.c:194 causes an infinite loop.

Thomas


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFFIuCeLK5blCcjpWoRAp3qAJ0Q+CcfCy5OBM7AjwTAYd811AXORACfd4Gk
D/TxpP3fX5NDVtNJO2Asz7U=
=9nSj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Oct 03 2006
prev sibling parent Juan Jose Comellas <jcomellas gmail.com> writes:

Linux. I'll test it and report my findings.


Walter Bright wrote:


 Better array literals.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Oct 03 2006