www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - D 1.0 for Jan 1, 2007

reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!
Nov 09 2006
next sibling parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:ej01sg$1aod$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


That's less than 2 months.  Better get to fixing those bugs!
Nov 09 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent "Lynn Allan" <l_d_allan adelphia.net> writes:
Great news!
Nov 09 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Pragma <ericanderton yahoo.removeme.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


Does that mean that I can start printing t-shirts?

http://www.zazzle.com/pramga/product/235223788036545236

Wow.. this'll be a great new-year.

//I know I'm a huge nerd.
//Yes, I'm okay with that.
-- 
- EricAnderton at yahoo
Nov 09 2006
next sibling parent reply Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Pragma wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


 
 Does that mean that I can start printing t-shirts?
 
 http://www.zazzle.com/pramga/product/235223788036545236
 
 Wow.. this'll be a great new-year.
 
 //I know I'm a huge nerd.
 //Yes, I'm okay with that.


We should certainly hype this as much as possible. My original idea was 
to have a web page with a live countdown. T-Shirts are good too.
Nov 09 2006
parent clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Kyle Furlong wrote:

 Pragma wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


 Does that mean that I can start printing t-shirts?

 http://www.zazzle.com/pramga/product/235223788036545236

 Wow.. this'll be a great new-year.

 //I know I'm a huge nerd.
 //Yes, I'm okay with that.


 
 We should certainly hype this as much as possible. My original idea was 
 to have a web page with a live countdown. T-Shirts are good too.


We can also all plan to release articles, tutorials, and software on 
this date.
Nov 09 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Pragma" <ericanderton yahoo.removeme.com> wrote in message 
news:ej04f8$1d6s$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Does that mean that I can start printing t-shirts?

 http://www.zazzle.com/pramga/product/235223788036545236


Hah!  I love how the locations on the back are all taken from the D frappr 
group.  New Freedom, PA, represent!
Nov 09 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:
OmigodIwantthatshirt!!111!1oneoneleven

Pragma wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


 
 Does that mean that I can start printing t-shirts?
 
 http://www.zazzle.com/pramga/product/235223788036545236
 
 Wow.. this'll be a great new-year.
 
 //I know I'm a huge nerd.
 //Yes, I'm okay with that.
Nov 10 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua> writes:
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:51:11 -0500, Pragma
<ericanderton yahoo.removeme.com> wrote:


Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


Does that mean that I can start printing t-shirts?

http://www.zazzle.com/pramga/product/235223788036545236

Wow.. this'll be a great new-year.

//I know I'm a huge nerd.
//Yes, I'm okay with that.


Great! But JS errors in IE 6 and changing front/back t-shirt views
does not work in firefox :)
Nov 10 2006
parent Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua> writes:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:50:37 +0200, Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua>
wrote:


On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:51:11 -0500, Pragma
<ericanderton yahoo.removeme.com> wrote:


Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


Does that mean that I can start printing t-shirts?

http://www.zazzle.com/pramga/product/235223788036545236

Wow.. this'll be a great new-year.

//I know I'm a huge nerd.
//Yes, I'm okay with that.


Great! But JS errors in IE 6 and changing front/back t-shirt views
does not work in firefox :)


Sorry. JS was disabled in my firefox and IE doesn't count :)
Nov 10 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply J Duncan <jtd514 nospam.ameritech.net> writes:
Pragma wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


 
 Does that mean that I can start printing t-shirts?
 
 http://www.zazzle.com/pramga/product/235223788036545236
 
 Wow.. this'll be a great new-year.
 
 //I know I'm a huge nerd.
 //Yes, I'm okay with that.


awwwwwwwwwsome, Im getting one - too bad it doesn't come in a sweatshirt
Nov 10 2006
parent pragma <ericanderton yahoo.com> writes:
J Duncan wrote:

 Pragma wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


 Does that mean that I can start printing t-shirts?

 http://www.zazzle.com/pramga/product/235223788036545236

 Wow.. this'll be a great new-year.

 //I know I'm a huge nerd.
 //Yes, I'm okay with that.


 
 awwwwwwwwwsome, Im getting one - too bad it doesn't come in a sweatshirt


Well, don't forget that I disabled the protections on the 
high-resolution versions of those graphics.  By all means, rip the 
images and take it over to another shop so you can get it your way!

PS, anyone else here know of an online shop that does printed *sleeves* 
as well?
Nov 11 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Pragma wrote:

 Does that mean that I can start printing t-shirts?
 
 http://www.zazzle.com/pramga/product/235223788036545236


OMG, cool shirt!!
Nov 10 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Charlie <charlies nowhere.com> writes:
I'm totally getting one!  But no Dallas Texas ?!?

Pragma wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


 
 Does that mean that I can start printing t-shirts?
 
 http://www.zazzle.com/pramga/product/235223788036545236
 
 Wow.. this'll be a great new-year.
 
 //I know I'm a huge nerd.
 //Yes, I'm okay with that.
Nov 11 2006
parent reply pragma <ericanderton yahoo.com> writes:
Charlie wrote:

 I'm totally getting one!  But no Dallas Texas ?!?
 
 Pragma wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


 Does that mean that I can start printing t-shirts?

 http://www.zazzle.com/pramga/product/235223788036545236

 Wow.. this'll be a great new-year.

 //I know I'm a huge nerd.
 //Yes, I'm okay with that.




Sorry about that. :(

As others have stated, the locations were taken from the D frappr group. 
  I may have missed it, or composed this before that was added to the list.

FWIW, here's what's on the thing now.  The images are also copyable from 
the "large view" feature of the site.  Feel free to branch and extend 
things from there as you see fit:

[NORTH AMERICA]
Toronto.ON Markham.ON Vancouver.BC Plymouth.MA NewFreedom.PA
Broomall.PA CollegePark.MD Washington.DC Woodbridge.VA
Lugoff.SC Lawrenceville.GA Atlanta.GA CapeCoral.FL
Calgary.AL Moscow.ID Indianapolis.IN Houghton.MI
Winona.MN RedWing.MN Austin.TX Houston.TX Edmond.OK
SantaBarbara.CA PaloAlto.CA FairOaks.CA Oceanside.CA
IowaCity.IA Cheney.WA Corvallis.OR Portland.OR
[SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA]
Quito.EC BuenosAires.AR
[EUROPE]
Alzette.LU Malaga, ES Lisbon.PT Loughborough.UK York.UK
Manchestershiresville.UK Trondheim.NO
Aanekoski.FI Helsinki.FI Turku.FI
Orebro.SE Stockholm.SE Uppsala.SE Norrkoping.SE Breda.NL
Stuttgart.DE Karlsruhe.DE Dingolfing.DE Berlin.DE Leipzig.DE
Baden-Wurttemberg.DE Strande.DE Leipzig.DE
Linz.AT Vienna.AT Kiev.UA Riga.LV Tartu.EE Budapest.HU
Torun.PL Zagreb.HR Kragujevac.CS Ljubljana.SL
[ASIA]
Pradesh.IN Tokyo.JP Moscow.RU
[AUSTRALIA]
Melbourne.VIC Canberra.ACT
Nov 11 2006
next sibling parent reply Chris Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:
pragma wrote:

 Charlie wrote:
 

 I'm totally getting one!  But no Dallas Texas ?!?

 Pragma wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:


 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!



 Does that mean that I can start printing t-shirts?

 http://www.zazzle.com/pramga/product/235223788036545236

 Wow.. this'll be a great new-year.

 //I know I'm a huge nerd.
 //Yes, I'm okay with that.




 
 
 Sorry about that. :(
 
 As others have stated, the locations were taken from the D frappr group. 
  I may have missed it, or composed this before that was added to the list.
 
 FWIW, here's what's on the thing now.  The images are also copyable from 
 the "large view" feature of the site.  Feel free to branch and extend 
 things from there as you see fit:
 
 [NORTH AMERICA]
 Toronto.ON Markham.ON Vancouver.BC Plymouth.MA NewFreedom.PA
 Broomall.PA CollegePark.MD Washington.DC Woodbridge.VA
 Lugoff.SC Lawrenceville.GA Atlanta.GA CapeCoral.FL
 Calgary.AL Moscow.ID Indianapolis.IN Houghton.MI
 Winona.MN RedWing.MN Austin.TX Houston.TX Edmond.OK
 SantaBarbara.CA PaloAlto.CA FairOaks.CA Oceanside.CA
 IowaCity.IA Cheney.WA Corvallis.OR Portland.OR
 [SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA]
 Quito.EC BuenosAires.AR
 [EUROPE]
 Alzette.LU Malaga, ES Lisbon.PT Loughborough.UK York.UK
 Manchestershiresville.UK Trondheim.NO
 Aanekoski.FI Helsinki.FI Turku.FI
 Orebro.SE Stockholm.SE Uppsala.SE Norrkoping.SE Breda.NL
 Stuttgart.DE Karlsruhe.DE Dingolfing.DE Berlin.DE Leipzig.DE
 Baden-Wurttemberg.DE Strande.DE Leipzig.DE
 Linz.AT Vienna.AT Kiev.UA Riga.LV Tartu.EE Budapest.HU
 Torun.PL Zagreb.HR Kragujevac.CS Ljubljana.SL
 [ASIA]
 Pradesh.IN Tokyo.JP Moscow.RU
 [AUSTRALIA]
 Melbourne.VIC Canberra.ACT


You're missing Owensboro, KY too.  ;)  Of course, only one of us is on the
Frappr map, so 
we're easy to miss.  I'll probably just do my own "branch" of the shirt if
that's the 
easier way.  Too cool.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
Nov 11 2006
parent pragma <ericanderton yahoo.com> writes:
Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:

 
 You're missing Owensboro, KY too.  ;)  Of course, only one of us is on 
 the Frappr map, so we're easy to miss.  I'll probably just do my own 
 "branch" of the shirt if that's the easier way.  Too cool.


By all means, if I don't fix it in a time frame to your liking, then 
please just go ahead.  It's pretty much an OSS shirt design at this 
point.  Go crazy. :)


 
 -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
Nov 11 2006
prev sibling parent reply Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

pragma schrieb am 2006-11-11:

 Charlie wrote:



 FWIW, here's what's on the thing now.  The images are also copyable from 
 the "large view" feature of the site.  Feel free to branch and extend 
 things from there as you see fit:

 [NORTH AMERICA]
 Toronto.ON Markham.ON Vancouver.BC Plymouth.MA NewFreedom.PA
 Broomall.PA CollegePark.MD Washington.DC Woodbridge.VA
 Lugoff.SC Lawrenceville.GA Atlanta.GA CapeCoral.FL
 Calgary.AL Moscow.ID Indianapolis.IN Houghton.MI
 Winona.MN RedWing.MN Austin.TX Houston.TX Edmond.OK
 SantaBarbara.CA PaloAlto.CA FairOaks.CA Oceanside.CA
 IowaCity.IA Cheney.WA Corvallis.OR Portland.OR
 [SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA]
 Quito.EC BuenosAires.AR
 [EUROPE]
 Alzette.LU Malaga, ES Lisbon.PT Loughborough.UK York.UK
 Manchestershiresville.UK Trondheim.NO
 Aanekoski.FI Helsinki.FI Turku.FI
 Orebro.SE Stockholm.SE Uppsala.SE Norrkoping.SE Breda.NL
 Stuttgart.DE Karlsruhe.DE Dingolfing.DE Berlin.DE Leipzig.DE
 Baden-Wurttemberg.DE Strande.DE Leipzig.DE
 Linz.AT Vienna.AT Kiev.UA Riga.LV Tartu.EE Budapest.HU
 Torun.PL Zagreb.HR Kragujevac.CS Ljubljana.SL
 [ASIA]
 Pradesh.IN Tokyo.JP Moscow.RU
 [AUSTRALIA]
 Melbourne.VIC Canberra.ACT


Leipzig.DE is included twice.

Thomas


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

iD8DBQFFVnAnLK5blCcjpWoRAmPdAKCLOXDhC8RBLHMwVXMYAiP8+m1dbQCcDph8
FJjLaxwzgTe2gxxSOnvSLsE=
=pIz3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Nov 11 2006
parent Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:

 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 Hash: SHA1
 
 pragma schrieb am 2006-11-11:

 Charlie wrote:


 

 FWIW, here's what's on the thing now.  The images are also copyable from 
 the "large view" feature of the site.  Feel free to branch and extend 
 things from there as you see fit:

 [NORTH AMERICA]
 Toronto.ON Markham.ON Vancouver.BC Plymouth.MA NewFreedom.PA
 Broomall.PA CollegePark.MD Washington.DC Woodbridge.VA
 Lugoff.SC Lawrenceville.GA Atlanta.GA CapeCoral.FL
 Calgary.AL Moscow.ID Indianapolis.IN Houghton.MI
 Winona.MN RedWing.MN Austin.TX Houston.TX Edmond.OK
 SantaBarbara.CA PaloAlto.CA FairOaks.CA Oceanside.CA
 IowaCity.IA Cheney.WA Corvallis.OR Portland.OR
 [SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA]
 Quito.EC BuenosAires.AR
 [EUROPE]
 Alzette.LU Malaga, ES Lisbon.PT Loughborough.UK York.UK
 Manchestershiresville.UK Trondheim.NO
 Aanekoski.FI Helsinki.FI Turku.FI
 Orebro.SE Stockholm.SE Uppsala.SE Norrkoping.SE Breda.NL
 Stuttgart.DE Karlsruhe.DE Dingolfing.DE Berlin.DE Leipzig.DE
 Baden-Wurttemberg.DE Strande.DE Leipzig.DE
 Linz.AT Vienna.AT Kiev.UA Riga.LV Tartu.EE Budapest.HU
 Torun.PL Zagreb.HR Kragujevac.CS Ljubljana.SL
 [ASIA]
 Pradesh.IN Tokyo.JP Moscow.RU
 [AUSTRALIA]
 Melbourne.VIC Canberra.ACT


 
 Leipzig.DE is included twice.


As it should be. Leipzig rocks!
Nov 12 2006
prev sibling parent "Frank Benoit (keinfarbton)" <benoit tionex.removethispart.de> writes:
Baden-Württemberg.DE is not a city, it is a region.
stuttgart.DE and karlsruhe.DE are part of it.

Nice shirt.
Nov 11 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:08:50 -0800, Walter Bright  
<newshound digitalmars.com> wrote:


 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!



Good!  Nice to have a date set. It should help motivate projects.

-JJR
Nov 09 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Richard Koch <dr.richard.koch t-online.de> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


super, superstitious - psychological super, the correct thing to do.

richard
Nov 09 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Tom <tom nospam.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


I think I'm going to cry... well done!! :'-)

Tom;
Nov 09 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


Is anyone concerned that this is right in the middle of holiday vacation 
time?  Dec 24-Jan 1 will be right in "crunch time".

Or maybe that's a good thing?  No classes to worry about for those of 
you in school...

--bb
Nov 09 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Walter Bright wrote:


 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


Walter,

Can you clarify for the rest of us what you consider this milestone 
meaning / containing?  What changes at that point in time?  What do you 
consider finished, frozen, whatever?

This has come up each time a 1.0 point has been suggested, with lots of 
potential things to fall into the bucket, but I don't recall ever seeing 
your point of view.

I'm purposely not including my thoughts or any of the past thoughts from 
other people since I'm seeking a fairly complete response from you rather 
than a short agreement sort of answer.

Thanks,
Brad
Nov 09 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:

 Can you clarify for the rest of us what you consider this milestone 
 meaning / containing?  What changes at that point in time?  What do you 
 consider finished, frozen, whatever?
 
 This has come up each time a 1.0 point has been suggested, with lots of 
 potential things to fall into the bucket, but I don't recall ever seeing 
 your point of view.
 
 I'm purposely not including my thoughts or any of the past thoughts from 
 other people since I'm seeking a fairly complete response from you rather 
 than a short agreement sort of answer.



Feature complete is one of those mirage things, the list of what needs 
to be added to D is never ending and ever changing. So my intention is 
to straighten out what we've got now as best I can, call it 1.0, and we 
can all move on doing continuous improvement.
Nov 09 2006
next sibling parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Brad Roberts wrote:

 Can you clarify for the rest of us what you consider this milestone 
 meaning / containing?  What changes at that point in time?  What do 
 you consider finished, frozen, whatever?

 This has come up each time a 1.0 point has been suggested, with lots 
 of potential things to fall into the bucket, but I don't recall ever 
 seeing your point of view.

 I'm purposely not including my thoughts or any of the past thoughts 
 from other people since I'm seeking a fairly complete response from 
 you rather than a short agreement sort of answer.


 
 
 Feature complete is one of those mirage things, the list of what needs 
 to be added to D is never ending and ever changing. So my intention is 
 to straighten out what we've got now as best I can, call it 1.0, and we 
 can all move on doing continuous improvement.


I'm not fishing for new features to be included.  Quite the opposite 
actually, considering how little time there is between now and jan 1. 
I'll spell out a little more for the type of info I'm looking for, 
almost exclusively based on past threads on 1.0 topics:

1) is jan 1 a branch point for the language spec?  the compiler?  both?

2) if it includes the compiler, are there going to be release 
candidates?  before or starting on jan 1?

3) if it includes the spec, I assume that you'll (and hopefully the 
community) will be spending time doing a thorough review of it both as 
it stands and as it is reflected in the compiler.

4) if it's the compiler and NOT the spec, what's that mean for the spec?

5) if it's the sped and not the compiler, when might the compiler be 
frozen to match the spec?

... there's bound to be more answerable questions that stem from these 
first few.

Clearer?

Later,
Brad
Nov 09 2006
next sibling parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Brad Roberts wrote:

 Can you clarify for the rest of us what you consider this milestone 
 meaning / containing?  What changes at that point in time?  What do 
 you consider finished, frozen, whatever?

 This has come up each time a 1.0 point has been suggested, with lots 
 of potential things to fall into the bucket, but I don't recall ever 
 seeing your point of view.

 I'm purposely not including my thoughts or any of the past thoughts 
 from other people since I'm seeking a fairly complete response from 
 you rather than a short agreement sort of answer.



 Feature complete is one of those mirage things, the list of what needs 
 to be added to D is never ending and ever changing. So my intention is 
 to straighten out what we've got now as best I can, call it 1.0, and 
 we can all move on doing continuous improvement.


 
 I'm not fishing for new features to be included.  Quite the opposite 
 actually, considering how little time there is between now and jan 1. 
 I'll spell out a little more for the type of info I'm looking for, 
 almost exclusively based on past threads on 1.0 topics:
 
 1) is jan 1 a branch point for the language spec?  the compiler?  both?
 
 2) if it includes the compiler, are there going to be release 
 candidates?  before or starting on jan 1?
 
 3) if it includes the spec, I assume that you'll (and hopefully the 
 community) will be spending time doing a thorough review of it both as 
 it stands and as it is reflected in the compiler.
 
 4) if it's the compiler and NOT the spec, what's that mean for the spec?
 
 5) if it's the sped and not the compiler, when might the compiler be 
 frozen to match the spec?
 
 ... there's bound to be more answerable questions that stem from these 
 first few.
 
 Clearer?
 
 Later,
 Brad


I am also interested in this information. If we are putting this stake 
in the ground, lets define what exactly that means.
Nov 10 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Brad Roberts wrote:

 Can you clarify for the rest of us what you consider this milestone
 meaning / containing?  What changes at that point in time?  What do
 you consider finished, frozen, whatever?

 This has come up each time a 1.0 point has been suggested, with lots
 of potential things to fall into the bucket, but I don't recall ever
 seeing your point of view.

 I'm purposely not including my thoughts or any of the past thoughts
 from other people since I'm seeking a fairly complete response from
 you rather than a short agreement sort of answer.


 
 
 Feature complete is one of those mirage things, the list of what needs
 to be added to D is never ending and ever changing. So my intention is
 to straighten out what we've got now as best I can, call it 1.0, and we
 can all move on doing continuous improvement.


 
 I'm not fishing for new features to be included.  Quite the opposite
 actually, considering how little time there is between now and jan 1.
 I'll spell out a little more for the type of info I'm looking for,
 almost exclusively based on past threads on 1.0 topics:
 
 1) is jan 1 a branch point for the language spec?  the compiler?  both?
 
 2) if it includes the compiler, are there going to be release
 candidates?  before or starting on jan 1?
 
 3) if it includes the spec, I assume that you'll (and hopefully the
 community) will be spending time doing a thorough review of it both as
 it stands and as it is reflected in the compiler.
 
 4) if it's the compiler and NOT the spec, what's that mean for the spec?
 
 5) if it's the sped and not the compiler, when might the compiler be
 frozen to match the spec?
 
 ... there's bound to be more answerable questions that stem from these
 first few.
 
 Clearer?
 
 Later,
 Brad


I heartily agree with you Brad, the very least I expect from a D 1.0
release, is that the spec is frozen/versioned/branched. With this follows
that either the compiler is branched (which technically might be the best
solution), or allows a way to specify which version of the spec to compile
for (preferably latest stable spec as default, with some -experimental
switch for new features). Without this, there will be _no_ gain whatsoever
in proclaiming D 1.0, as users still would have to upgrade to the latest
compiler with the newest and greatest just to have bugfixes for the old
issues also pertaining to the stable version of the spec.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi
Nov 10 2006
parent reply Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Brad Roberts wrote:
 

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Brad Roberts wrote:

 Can you clarify for the rest of us what you consider this milestone
 meaning / containing?  What changes at that point in time?  What do
 you consider finished, frozen, whatever?

 This has come up each time a 1.0 point has been suggested, with lots
 of potential things to fall into the bucket, but I don't recall ever
 seeing your point of view.

 I'm purposely not including my thoughts or any of the past thoughts
 from other people since I'm seeking a fairly complete response from
 you rather than a short agreement sort of answer.


 Feature complete is one of those mirage things, the list of what needs
 to be added to D is never ending and ever changing. So my intention is
 to straighten out what we've got now as best I can, call it 1.0, and we
 can all move on doing continuous improvement.


 I'm not fishing for new features to be included.  Quite the opposite
 actually, considering how little time there is between now and jan 1.
 I'll spell out a little more for the type of info I'm looking for,
 almost exclusively based on past threads on 1.0 topics:

 1) is jan 1 a branch point for the language spec?  the compiler?  both?

 2) if it includes the compiler, are there going to be release
 candidates?  before or starting on jan 1?

 3) if it includes the spec, I assume that you'll (and hopefully the
 community) will be spending time doing a thorough review of it both as
 it stands and as it is reflected in the compiler.

 4) if it's the compiler and NOT the spec, what's that mean for the spec?

 5) if it's the sped and not the compiler, when might the compiler be
 frozen to match the spec?

 ... there's bound to be more answerable questions that stem from these
 first few.

 Clearer?

 Later,
 Brad


 
 I heartily agree with you Brad, the very least I expect from a D 1.0
 release, is that the spec is frozen/versioned/branched. With this follows
 that either the compiler is branched (which technically might be the best
 solution), or allows a way to specify which version of the spec to compile
 for (preferably latest stable spec as default, with some -experimental
 switch for new features). Without this, there will be _no_ gain whatsoever
 in proclaiming D 1.0, as users still would have to upgrade to the latest
 compiler with the newest and greatest just to have bugfixes for the old
 issues also pertaining to the stable version of the spec.


You're overstating the case, I think.
D 1.0 also means:
* all previous versions are tossed away.
* all libraries synchronise to the same compiler version. This is very 
important, and has never happened before.

Instead of 175 possible compiler releases to choose, there will be only 
one obvious choice. Especially for library developers.
Nov 10 2006
next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 Brad Roberts wrote:
 

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Brad Roberts wrote:

 Can you clarify for the rest of us what you consider this milestone
 meaning / containing?  What changes at that point in time?  What do
 you consider finished, frozen, whatever?

 This has come up each time a 1.0 point has been suggested, with lots
 of potential things to fall into the bucket, but I don't recall ever
 seeing your point of view.

 I'm purposely not including my thoughts or any of the past thoughts
 from other people since I'm seeking a fairly complete response from
 you rather than a short agreement sort of answer.


 Feature complete is one of those mirage things, the list of what needs
 to be added to D is never ending and ever changing. So my intention is
 to straighten out what we've got now as best I can, call it 1.0, and we
 can all move on doing continuous improvement.


 I'm not fishing for new features to be included.  Quite the opposite
 actually, considering how little time there is between now and jan 1.
 I'll spell out a little more for the type of info I'm looking for,
 almost exclusively based on past threads on 1.0 topics:

 1) is jan 1 a branch point for the language spec?  the compiler?  both?

 2) if it includes the compiler, are there going to be release
 candidates?  before or starting on jan 1?

 3) if it includes the spec, I assume that you'll (and hopefully the
 community) will be spending time doing a thorough review of it both as
 it stands and as it is reflected in the compiler.

 4) if it's the compiler and NOT the spec, what's that mean for the spec?

 5) if it's the sped and not the compiler, when might the compiler be
 frozen to match the spec?

 ... there's bound to be more answerable questions that stem from these
 first few.

 Clearer?

 Later,
 Brad


 
 I heartily agree with you Brad, the very least I expect from a D 1.0
 release, is that the spec is frozen/versioned/branched. With this follows
 that either the compiler is branched (which technically might be the best
 solution), or allows a way to specify which version of the spec to
 compile for (preferably latest stable spec as default, with some
 -experimental switch for new features). Without this, there will be _no_
 gain whatsoever in proclaiming D 1.0, as users still would have to
 upgrade to the latest compiler with the newest and greatest just to have
 bugfixes for the old issues also pertaining to the stable version of the
 spec.


 
 You're overstating the case, I think.
 D 1.0 also means:
 * all previous versions are tossed away.
 * all libraries synchronise to the same compiler version. This is very
 important, and has never happened before.
 
 Instead of 175 possible compiler releases to choose, there will be only
 one obvious choice. Especially for library developers.


I'm not at all worried by all those prior versions, but about DMD 1.01
released 20th of January with some highly needed bugfixes and another great
new (buggy) feature breaking 1.0 code.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi
Nov 10 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Ary Manzana <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Don Clugston escribió:

 Instead of 175 possible compiler releases to choose, there will be only 
 one obvious choice. Especially for library developers.


And for IDE developers, which, right now, instead of being able to add 
new features to the IDE must keep an eye on the changes and additions to 
the D spec.
Nov 10 2006
prev sibling parent reply BLS <nanali wanadoo.fr> writes:
Don Clugston schrieb:

 Instead of 175 possible compiler releases to choose, there will be only 
 one obvious choice. Especially for library developers.


Bingo.

Dedicated to the pessimistic guys : What do you expect from upcoming D 
1.x releases. Something radical new ? I don't think so. And in case that 
you are right : Will the  new 1.x feature automatically break existing 
code ?

Björn
Nov 10 2006
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
BLS wrote:


 Don Clugston schrieb:

 Instead of 175 possible compiler releases to choose, there will be only
 one obvious choice. Especially for library developers.


 
 Bingo.
 
 Dedicated to the pessimistic guys : What do you expect from upcoming D
 1.x releases. Something radical new ? I don't think so. And in case that
 you are right : Will the  new 1.x feature automatically break existing
 code ?
 
 Björn


Björn, I might sound pessimistic, but this how how D/DMD always has been,
and Walter has yet to say how this will change to accomodate the fact that
we will have a stable release.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi
Nov 10 2006
parent reply BLS <nanali wanadoo.fr> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund schrieb:


 Björn, I might sound pessimistic, but this how how D/DMD always has been,
 and Walter has yet to say how this will change to accomodate the fact that
 we will have a stable release.
 


I still have to call myself a D newbie and so my opinion is probabely 
not much worth.  I guess you'll agree that there are allready a lot of 
goodies implemented in D. So that a nowadays written library will/could 
survive a few years.

I would like to mention here the gnu classpath lib. (0.92) which uses 
the Java 1.2 language features and is (again IMO) pretty stableand 
usefull It also seems that the classpath guys are able to find a way to 
upgrade classpath to generics without "too" much pain.

Kind regards Björn
Nov 10 2006
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
BLS wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund schrieb:
 

 Björn, I might sound pessimistic, but this how how D/DMD always has been,
 and Walter has yet to say how this will change to accomodate the fact
 that we will have a stable release.
 


 
 I still have to call myself a D newbie and so my opinion is probabely
 not much worth.  I guess you'll agree that there are allready a lot of
 goodies implemented in D. So that a nowadays written library will/could
 survive a few years.
 
 I would like to mention here the gnu classpath lib. (0.92) which uses
 the Java 1.2 language features and is (again IMO) pretty stableand
 usefull It also seems that the classpath guys are able to find a way to
 upgrade classpath to generics without "too" much pain.
 
 Kind regards Björn


Yes, but there Java 1.2 is a stable specification. What I am trying to say,
is that D 1.0 needs to be set enough in stone, so that the document/webpage
on it don't change on the first new release of DMD. I personally don't
think "Just use the compiler tagged 1.0, and you have a stable
environment." is good enough, because we _will_ want bugfixes, and we
_will_ want to use new (or test) features when they appear (or when they
have proved themselves), without ruining the application we spent hours and
hours on to get working with D 1.0.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi
Nov 10 2006
next sibling parent Charles D Hixson <charleshixsn earthlink.net> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 BLS wrote:
 

 Lars Ivar Igesund schrieb:
...
 Kind regards Björn


 
 Yes, but there Java 1.2 is a stable specification. What I am trying to say,
 is that D 1.0 needs to be set enough in stone, so that the document/webpage
 on it don't change on the first new release of DMD. I personally don't
 think "Just use the compiler tagged 1.0, and you have a stable
 environment." is good enough, because we _will_ want bugfixes, and we
 _will_ want to use new (or test) features when they appear (or when they
 have proved themselves), without ruining the application we spent hours and
 hours on to get working with D 1.0.
 


1.0.xxx for the stable tree and 1.1.xxx for the experimental tree?
Nov 10 2006
prev sibling parent reply Carlos Santander <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund escribió:

 BLS wrote:
 

 Lars Ivar Igesund schrieb:


 Björn, I might sound pessimistic, but this how how D/DMD always has been,
 and Walter has yet to say how this will change to accomodate the fact
 that we will have a stable release.


 I still have to call myself a D newbie and so my opinion is probabely
 not much worth.  I guess you'll agree that there are allready a lot of
 goodies implemented in D. So that a nowadays written library will/could
 survive a few years.

 I would like to mention here the gnu classpath lib. (0.92) which uses
 the Java 1.2 language features and is (again IMO) pretty stableand
 usefull It also seems that the classpath guys are able to find a way to
 upgrade classpath to generics without "too" much pain.

 Kind regards Björn


 
 Yes, but there Java 1.2 is a stable specification. What I am trying to say,
 is that D 1.0 needs to be set enough in stone, so that the document/webpage
 on it don't change on the first new release of DMD. I personally don't
 think "Just use the compiler tagged 1.0, and you have a stable
 environment." is good enough, because we _will_ want bugfixes, and we
 _will_ want to use new (or test) features when they appear (or when they
 have proved themselves), without ruining the application we spent hours and
 hours on to get working with D 1.0.
 


I might be misunderstanding you, but here's what I get: starting in January,
the 
DigitalMars site gets an addition section entitled "The D 1.0 Spec" or
something 
like that, which won't ever change. Further changes to DMD or new D versions 
have to be done in a different section/document. If this is what you're 
proposing, I strongly agree.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal
Nov 10 2006
parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Carlos Santander wrote:


 Lars Ivar Igesund escribió:

 BLS wrote:
 

 Lars Ivar Igesund schrieb:


 Björn, I might sound pessimistic, but this how how D/DMD always has
 been, and Walter has yet to say how this will change to accomodate the
 fact that we will have a stable release.


 I still have to call myself a D newbie and so my opinion is probabely
 not much worth.  I guess you'll agree that there are allready a lot of
 goodies implemented in D. So that a nowadays written library will/could
 survive a few years.

 I would like to mention here the gnu classpath lib. (0.92) which uses
 the Java 1.2 language features and is (again IMO) pretty stableand
 usefull It also seems that the classpath guys are able to find a way to
 upgrade classpath to generics without "too" much pain.

 Kind regards Björn


 
 Yes, but there Java 1.2 is a stable specification. What I am trying to
 say, is that D 1.0 needs to be set enough in stone, so that the
 document/webpage on it don't change on the first new release of DMD. I
 personally don't think "Just use the compiler tagged 1.0, and you have a
 stable environment." is good enough, because we _will_ want bugfixes, and
 we _will_ want to use new (or test) features when they appear (or when
 they have proved themselves), without ruining the application we spent
 hours and hours on to get working with D 1.0.
 


 
 I might be misunderstanding you, but here's what I get: starting in
 January, the DigitalMars site gets an addition section entitled "The D 1.0
 Spec" or something like that, which won't ever change. Further changes to
 DMD or new D versions have to be done in a different section/document. If
 this is what you're proposing, I strongly agree.
 


Well, after this, Walter has stated his purpose in this matter, and it is at
least somewhere along the road where I want it :)

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi
Nov 10 2006
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:

 1) is jan 1 a branch point for the language spec?  the compiler?  both?


Both. The idea is the compiler will get a switch to cause it to be a 
"1.0 features only" compiler, so bug fixes will continue to get folded 
in, but new features can be disabled.


 2) if it includes the compiler, are there going to be release 
 candidates?  before or starting on jan 1?


Basically all the releases from now till then will be oriented towards 
that. On Jan 1, that's it.


 3) if it includes the spec, I assume that you'll (and hopefully the 
 community) will be spending time doing a thorough review of it both as 
 it stands and as it is reflected in the compiler.


The spec will get marked as appropriate when post 1.0 features change.


 4) if it's the compiler and NOT the spec, what's that mean for the spec?
 
 5) if it's the sped and not the compiler, when might the compiler be 
 frozen to match the spec?
 
 ... there's bound to be more answerable questions that stem from these 
 first few.
 
 Clearer?


Yes.
Nov 10 2006
parent Benji Smith <dlanguage benjismith.net> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Brad Roberts wrote:

 1) is jan 1 a branch point for the language spec?  the compiler?  both?


 
 Both. The idea is the compiler will get a switch to cause it to be a 
 "1.0 features only" compiler, so bug fixes will continue to get folded 
 in, but new features can be disabled.


Yikes.

I'd really rather see a branched source tree, where bugfixes to the 1.0 
compiler go into the 1.x branch, and new features go into the 2.0 branch.

For a few versions, it might work to have a single compiler binary where 
new features and bugfixes can be kept separate simply using passing a 
commandline parameter to a single compiler binary.

But what about refactorings of existing features. Are those new 
features, or are they bugfixes? What happens when a particular new 
feature makes an old feature obsolete?

I know it's a little bit more work to maintain two different branches 
(though I suspect it's nearly as much work to maintain a whole sandboxed 
compiler version within the same development branch as the old stable 
version). Nevertheless, even if it is more work, I think it'd be worthwhile.

--benji
Nov 10 2006
prev sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Brad Roberts wrote:

 Can you clarify for the rest of us what you consider this milestone 
 meaning / containing?  What changes at that point in time?  What do 
 you consider finished, frozen, whatever?

 This has come up each time a 1.0 point has been suggested, with lots 
 of potential things to fall into the bucket, but I don't recall ever 
 seeing your point of view.

 I'm purposely not including my thoughts or any of the past thoughts 
 from other people since I'm seeking a fairly complete response from 
 you rather than a short agreement sort of answer.


 
 Feature complete is one of those mirage things, the list of what needs 
 to be added to D is never ending and ever changing. So my intention is 
 to straighten out what we've got now as best I can, call it 1.0, and we 
 can all move on doing continuous improvement.


One aspect of a 1.0 release is how to handle deprecation of current 
features.  Perhaps any outstanding "to do" items that may affect 
existing functionality could be addressed, at least in the spec, before 
Jan 1st?  The only feature I can think of offhand is the double-meaning 
of "auto" vs. the "MyClass c = MyClass()" syntax you mentioned a while 
back, but there may be others.


Sean
Nov 10 2006
parent Charlie <charlies nowhere.com> writes:
Yes, for some reason this bothers me to no end.  *Please* *please* 
update this for 1.0 ( the double meaning of 'auto' ).

Charlie

Sean Kelly wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Brad Roberts wrote:

 Can you clarify for the rest of us what you consider this milestone 
 meaning / containing?  What changes at that point in time?  What do 
 you consider finished, frozen, whatever?

 This has come up each time a 1.0 point has been suggested, with lots 
 of potential things to fall into the bucket, but I don't recall ever 
 seeing your point of view.

 I'm purposely not including my thoughts or any of the past thoughts 
 from other people since I'm seeking a fairly complete response from 
 you rather than a short agreement sort of answer.


 Feature complete is one of those mirage things, the list of what needs 
 to be added to D is never ending and ever changing. So my intention is 
 to straighten out what we've got now as best I can, call it 1.0, and 
 we can all move on doing continuous improvement.


 
 One aspect of a 1.0 release is how to handle deprecation of current 
 features.  Perhaps any outstanding "to do" items that may affect 
 existing functionality could be addressed, at least in the spec, before 
 Jan 1st?  The only feature I can think of offhand is the double-meaning 
 of "auto" vs. the "MyClass c = MyClass()" syntax you mentioned a while 
 back, but there may be others.
 
 
 Sean
Nov 11 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua> writes:
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:08:50 -0800, Walter Bright
<newshound digitalmars.com> wrote:


We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


Thanks, Walter. That's the right thing to do.
Nov 09 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Antonio <antonio abrevia.net> writes:
Walter Bright escribió:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


Thank you
Nov 10 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent "Andrey Khropov" <andkhropov_nosp m_mtu-net.ru> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:


 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


Great news!

But please, please resolve 'auto' controversy. It really hurts me :-(

-- 
AKhropov
Nov 10 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply David L. Davis <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:
Thanks Walter!

By the way, this just happens to fall mid-way (the 12 month of 24
months) within the current Darian Mars Calender (02.Gemini.211). I
know it's a Nerdy thing to mention...but I think that its really
kool that 01.Jan.2007 happens to match up this way!

For more about the Darian Mars Calender, check out this site:
http://pweb.jps.net/~tgangale/mars/converter/calendar_clock.htm

David L.

------------
MKoD D Programming Langauge:
http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html
Nov 10 2006
parent J Duncan <jtd514 nospam.ameritech.net> writes:
David L. Davis wrote:

 Thanks Walter!
 
 By the way, this just happens to fall mid-way (the 12 month of 24
 months) within the current Darian Mars Calender (02.Gemini.211). I
 know it's a Nerdy thing to mention...but I think that its really
 kool that 01.Jan.2007 happens to match up this way!
 
 For more about the Darian Mars Calender, check out this site:
 http://pweb.jps.net/~tgangale/mars/converter/calendar_clock.htm
 
 David L.
 
 ------------
 MKoD D Programming Langauge:
 http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html


hahah yeah D should set its release date by the Mars calendar :D
Nov 10 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


Good! I guess.

But come March and I see D 1.23 released, then we've wasted the 
milestone. It's the "move on" that worries me. I think we should stop 
for a while, look at what we've done, and let the surroundings and infra 
adjust and sprout.

We should stop this target, so that serious critics from the world at 
large can aim and shoot at us. We really need that. And the publicity 
with it.

"Optimizing" our web presence is of course good, but we really need some 
exposure in printed media. There still are folks who are very important 
to our success, but who aren't full-time surfers and news readers. We 
need to get recognized amongst them.

And please: libraries and packages! Downloading D should feel like 
inserting a shrink-wrapped CD -- it just works. And the documentation is 
there, the libraries work off the bat, and installation is a snap -- on 
all three platforms.

We have 3.5 weeks to do this. (2.5 weeks of this month plus 1 week. 
Remember, December counts as one single week, when you look at it in 
hindsight. Happens every year.)

Oh, and do we have CUJ, DrDobb's, InfoWorld, etc. covered?? Can I see 
Walter interviewed in each in the January Issue?
Nov 10 2006
parent Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:
Georg Wrede wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


 
 Good! I guess.
 
 But come March and I see D 1.23 released, then we've wasted the 
 milestone. It's the "move on" that worries me. I think we should stop 
 for a while, look at what we've done, and let the surroundings and infra 
 adjust and sprout.
 
 We should stop this target, so that serious critics from the world at 
 large can aim and shoot at us. We really need that. And the publicity 
 with it.
 
 "Optimizing" our web presence is of course good, but we really need some 
 exposure in printed media. There still are folks who are very important 
 to our success, but who aren't full-time surfers and news readers. We 
 need to get recognized amongst them.
 
 And please: libraries and packages! Downloading D should feel like 
 inserting a shrink-wrapped CD -- it just works. And the documentation is 
 there, the libraries work off the bat, and installation is a snap -- on 
 all three platforms.
 
 We have 3.5 weeks to do this. (2.5 weeks of this month plus 1 week. 
 Remember, December counts as one single week, when you look at it in 
 hindsight. Happens every year.)
 
 Oh, and do we have CUJ, DrDobb's, InfoWorld, etc. covered?? Can I see 
 Walter interviewed in each in the January Issue?


Very good questions.
Nov 10 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:


 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


Great news! And we'll try to have a wxD 1.0 library to match it then!

--anders
Nov 11 2006
parent Nils Hensel <nils.hensel web.de> writes:
Anders F Björklund schrieb:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


 
 Great news! And we'll try to have a wxD 1.0 library to match it then!


YES! I'd love that!

Cheers,
Nils
Nov 12 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


I'm skeptic that it will make much difference in D's popularity, 
acceptance, or usability, but I guess we'll just have to see then (in 
the following period).

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Nov 11 2006
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


Do you really think you're going to manage to answer/fix all the 
d1.0blocker nominations in this short span of 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.
Nov 12 2006
parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 We'll release it one way or another Jan 1. And then we'll move on!


 
 Do you really think you're going to manage to answer/fix all the 
 d1.0blocker nominations in this short span of time?


No. I'll do the best I can.
Nov 12 2006