www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - dmd 2.064.2

reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Ok, this is it:

http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
Nov 05 2013
next sibling parent reply "Joshua Niehus" <jm.niehus gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg


Not found :(

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11112

still open :(
Nov 05 2013
next sibling parent "Joshua Niehus" <jm.niehus gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:10:53 UTC, Joshua Niehus wrote:

 On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg


 Not found :(


nvm, just started working...
apologies
Nov 05 2013
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/5/2013 2:10 PM, Joshua Niehus wrote:

 On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg


 Not found :(


It's uploading as I type this. Should be up in a minute or two.



 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11112

 still open :(


Sorry. There are a lot still open - but a vast number were fixed.
Nov 05 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe


What's up with the Windows installer?  It appears to be using an 
old version without all the improvements I've been making but 
with some new changes added.
Nov 05 2013
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/5/2013 2:21 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:

 What's up with the Windows installer?  It appears to be using an old version
 without all the improvements I've been making but with some new changes added.


It should be using the one on the 2.064 branch on github. Can you check that?
Nov 05 2013
parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:24:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 11/5/2013 2:21 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:

 What's up with the Windows installer?  It appears to be using 
 an old version
 without all the improvements I've been making but with some 
 new changes added.


 It should be using the one on the 2.064 branch on github. Can 
 you check that?


"[2.064 branch] is 2 commits ahead and 9 commits behind master"

So it's definitely missing some stuff in the branch itself but 
what you put up is also definitely not what is in the 2.064 
branch either.  There should be several sections:

- D2
   - cURL Support
   - Detect MSVC
   - Add to PATH
- D1
   - Add to PATH
- dmc
   - Add to PATH
- Start Menu Shortcuts
- Visual D

But in the one you put up there is just:
- dmd
   - cURL support
   - Add to PATH
- dmc
   - Add to PATH
- Start menu items

Normally it's an internet installer too but isn't this time (not 
a bad thing but not normal either).  It also uninstalls DMD 
before it installs which the current installer doesn't do.  I 
have no idea where you got this version.
Nov 05 2013
parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:36:43 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:24:14 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:

 On 11/5/2013 2:21 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:

 What's up with the Windows installer?  It appears to be using 
 an old version
 without all the improvements I've been making but with some 
 new changes added.


 It should be using the one on the 2.064 branch on github. Can 
 you check that?


 "[2.064 branch] is 2 commits ahead and 9 commits behind master"

 So it's definitely missing some stuff in the branch itself but 
 what you put up is also definitely not what is in the 2.064 
 branch either.  There should be several sections:

 - D2
   - cURL Support
   - Detect MSVC
   - Add to PATH
 - D1
   - Add to PATH
 - dmc
   - Add to PATH
 - Start Menu Shortcuts
 - Visual D

 But in the one you put up there is just:
 - dmd
   - cURL support
   - Add to PATH
 - dmc
   - Add to PATH
 - Start menu items

 Normally it's an internet installer too but isn't this time 
 (not a bad thing but not normal either).  It also uninstalls 
 DMD before it installs which the current installer doesn't do.  
 I have no idea where you got this version.


Figured it out.  You used linux/win/installer.nsi.  I have no 
idea why that exists and what it is for.  Jordi has been making a 
lot of changes to it but I have no idea what the purpose of it 
is.  Maybe he should start doing pull requests like everyone else 
so people know what's going on with the repo.
Nov 05 2013
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/5/2013 2:41 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:

 Figured it out.  You used linux/win/installer.nsi.  I have no idea why that
 exists and what it is for.


It's so you can build the windows installer from a Linux box. I presumed it was 
the same.


 Maybe he should start doing pull
 requests like everyone else so people know what's going on with the repo.


It *is* in the repo. That's where I got it.

Please issue a pull request to update it.
Nov 05 2013
next sibling parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:46:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 11/5/2013 2:41 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:

 Figured it out.  You used linux/win/installer.nsi.  I have no 
 idea why that
 exists and what it is for.


 It's so you can build the windows installer from a Linux box. I 
 presumed it was the same.


 Maybe he should start doing pull
 requests like everyone else so people know what's going on 
 with the repo.


 It *is* in the repo. That's where I got it.


I know, what I mean is that Jordi pushes directly to 
D-Programming-Language when he works so his changes are done 
largely under the radar.


 Please issue a pull request to update it.


He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin to 
pull them in sync.  The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always 
been the one used in the past.  I don't see why the file would 
need to differ between a Windows and Linux box.
Nov 05 2013
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/5/2013 2:52 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:

 He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin to pull them in
 sync.  The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the one used in the
 past.  I don't see why the file would need to differ between a Windows and
Linux
 box.


For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows version and 
uploaded it.
Nov 05 2013
parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 23:51:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 11/5/2013 2:52 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:

 He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin to 
 pull them in
 sync.  The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the 
 one used in the
 past.  I don't see why the file would need to differ between a 
 Windows and Linux
 box.


 For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows 
 version and uploaded it.


Perfect. Thank you.
Nov 05 2013
parent reply Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:
On 6 November 2013 09:54, Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> wrote:


 On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 23:51:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:


 On 11/5/2013 2:52 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:


 He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin to pull them
 in
 sync.  The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the one used in
 the
 past.  I don't see why the file would need to differ between a Windows
 and Linux
 box.


 For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows version
 and uploaded it.


 Perfect. Thank you.


Seems to work on my system.

Notices:
 * no 64bit curl.lib :(
 * gcstub64, phobos64 still have '64' in the name :(

Oh well, there's always next time...
Nov 05 2013
next sibling parent "Temtaime" <temtaime gmail.com> writes:
Btw.

http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd-2.064.2.exe
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd.2.064.2.zip
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
http://mirror.ftp.digitalmars.acomirei.ru/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb

One can use my mirror. c:
Nov 05 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 04:11:52 UTC, Manu wrote:

 On 6 November 2013 09:54, Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> wrote:


 On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 23:51:54 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:


 On 11/5/2013 2:52 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:


 He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin 
 to pull them
 in
 sync.  The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the 
 one used in
 the
 past.  I don't see why the file would need to differ between 
 a Windows
 and Linux
 box.


 For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the 
 windows version
 and uploaded it.


 Perfect. Thank you.


 Seems to work on my system.

 Notices:
  * no 64bit curl.lib :(
  * gcstub64, phobos64 still have '64' in the name :(

 Oh well, there's always next time...


Can we get rid of the hard dependancy on curl, or ship our own 
version of it ? It created tremedous problem to me in some 
environement where it wasn't available in the past.
Nov 05 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Rainer Schuetze <r.sagitario gmx.de> writes:
On 06.11.2013 05:11, Manu wrote:

 On 6 November 2013 09:54, Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net
 <mailto:eco gnuk.net>> wrote:

     On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 23:51:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

         On 11/5/2013 2:52 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:

             He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin
             to pull them in
             sync.  The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the
             one used in the
             past.  I don't see why the file would need to differ between
             a Windows and Linux
             box.


         For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the windows
         version and uploaded it.


     Perfect. Thank you.


 Seems to work on my system.

 Notices:
   * no 64bit curl.lib :(


The library used by the auto tester is here: 
http://downloads.dlang.org/other/curl-7.28.1-devel-rainer.win64.zip


   * gcstub64, phobos64 still have '64' in the name :(


I agree that using identical names is better, but it is not very 
critical for phobos, because you rarely have to specify it explicitly.


 Oh well, there's always next time...
Nov 05 2013
prev sibling parent "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 04:11:52 UTC, Manu wrote:

 On 6 November 2013 09:54, Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> wrote:


 On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 23:51:54 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:


 On 11/5/2013 2:52 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:


 He's made so many changes I don't even know where to begin 
 to pull them
 in
 sync.  The one in windows/dinstaller.nsi has always been the 
 one used in
 the
 past.  I don't see why the file would need to differ between 
 a Windows
 and Linux
 box.


 For the moment I just rebuilt dmd-2.064.2.exe with the 
 windows version
 and uploaded it.


 Perfect. Thank you.


 Seems to work on my system.

 Notices:
  * no 64bit curl.lib :(


Sorry. Couldn't find the time. The installer can be updated 
independently of dmd releases to have it but I'm not sure how 
willing Walter will be to do a mid-release update.



  * gcstub64, phobos64 still have '64' in the name :(

 Oh well, there's always next time...
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Jordi Sayol <g.sayol yahoo.es> writes:
El 05/11/13 23:46, Walter Bright ha escrit:

 On 11/5/2013 2:41 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:

 Figured it out.  You used linux/win/installer.nsi.  I have no idea why that
 exists and what it is for.


 
 It's so you can build the windows installer from a Linux box. I presumed it
was the same.
 


It is not the same. The linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi is a fork of
windows/dinstaller.nsi. Mainly differs as it includes everything on itself,
removing the need to download dmd/dmc/libcurl every time dmd is installed.
There are some other minor changes.

-- 
Jordi Sayol
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Jordi Sayol <g.sayol yahoo.es> writes:
El 06/11/13 10:55, Jordi Sayol ha escrit:

 El 05/11/13 23:46, Walter Bright ha escrit:

 On 11/5/2013 2:41 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:

 Figured it out.  You used linux/win/installer.nsi.  I have no idea why that
 exists and what it is for.


 It's so you can build the windows installer from a Linux box. I presumed it
was the same.


 
 It is not the same. The linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi is a fork of
windows/dinstaller.nsi. Mainly differs as it includes everything on itself,
removing the need to download dmd/dmc/libcurl every time dmd is installed.
There are some other minor changes.
 


Errata: s:linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi:linux/win/installer.nsi:

BTW. Changes on this fork:

- Built in all the needed components. No downloads during installation.

- Checks if another dmd version is already installed, and force to uninstall it
before proceed. If uninstaller fails, installation can be forced by the command
"dmd-2.064.2.exe /f".

- Changes on the Windows system registry fields and values.

- Remove the dmd version 1.

- Not allowed to go ahead if nothing is selected.

- Changed default path to "C:\dmd". If previous dmd installation is set to
another path, installer uses it instead the default.


It is prepared to be built by the "linux/dmd_win.sh", which is included on
"linux/build_all.sh" as well.

-- 
Jordi Sayol
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "tester" <tester test.com> writes:
how do make that comiler work?
[Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 
2013

this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand 
the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs 
(user32)

windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit
Nov 07 2013
next sibling parent reply "evilrat" <evilrat666 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote:

 how do make that comiler work?
 [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 
 2013

 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand 
 the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs 
 (user32)

 windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit


if it compiles with -m32 and fails with -m64 then i think you 
need manually edit ur sc.ini to add correct paths for windows 
sdk/kits and visual studio.
Nov 07 2013
parent reply "tester" <tester test.com> writes:
i did that, but it still will not work

On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 10:12:29 UTC, evilrat wrote:

 On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote:

 how do make that comiler work?
 [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual 
 Studio 2013

 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand 
 the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs 
 (user32)

 windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit


 if it compiles with -m32 and fails with -m64 then i think you 
 need manually edit ur sc.ini to add correct paths for windows 
 sdk/kits and visual studio.
Nov 07 2013
parent reply "tester" <tester test.com> writes:
does not work with the installer either.


that really sucks


On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 10:19:03 UTC, tester wrote:

 i did that, but it still will not work

 On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 10:12:29 UTC, evilrat wrote:

 On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote:

 how do make that comiler work?
 [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual 
 Studio 2013

 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i 
 amand the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find 
 the libs (user32)

 windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit


 if it compiles with -m32 and fails with -m64 then i think you 
 need manually edit ur sc.ini to add correct paths for windows 
 sdk/kits and visual studio.
Nov 07 2013
parent reply "evilrat" <evilrat666 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 11:42:25 UTC, tester wrote:

 does not work with the installer either.


 that really sucks


well, this is because most people stick with linux, and i think 
there few to noone  win8 users. so here is the result ...
Nov 07 2013
next sibling parent "tester" <tester test.com> writes:
yes, that may be true and i understand that there are still 
compiler errors.
but the most primitive things that are advertised should work. 
something like this would get people fired in our company - and 
rightly so.


On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 12:06:51 UTC, evilrat wrote:

 On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 11:42:25 UTC, tester wrote:

 does not work with the installer either.


 that really sucks


 well, this is because most people stick with linux, and i think 
 there few to noone  win8 users. so here is the result ...
Nov 07 2013
prev sibling parent Rory McGuire <rjmcguire gmail.com> writes:
Visual studio doesn't run on Linux, there are very many windows users 64bit
was first supported on Linux though. submit a patch for the installer, we
all have other jobs.
On 7 Nov 2013 14:10, "evilrat" <evilrat666 gmail.com> wrote:


 On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 11:42:25 UTC, tester wrote:


 does not work with the installer either.


 that really sucks


 well, this is because most people stick with linux, and i think there few
 to noone  win8 users. so here is the result ...
Nov 07 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/7/2013 12:58 AM, tester wrote:

 how do make that comiler work?
 [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 2013

 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand the pathes and
 run as admin or not - it will not find the libs (user32)

 windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit


There's an attachment to https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11457 
with an sc.ini, does that one work for you?
Nov 07 2013
parent reply "tester" <tester test.com> writes:
yes i tried that.

i uninstalled d selveral times and reinstalled. itried it with 
the zip file.
nothing worked.. after a reboot i reinstalled with the installer 
and used the (bug) appended sc.ini. didn't work. i then replaced 
all occurences of %VCINSTALLDIR% and %WindowsSdkDir% with the 
actual path such as C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual 
Studio 12.0\VC and it wouldn't work. i worked with these 
modifications when i started as administrator.

this is frustrating, since i love to install a new release an do 
something with it out of the box. never the less i love d and i 
hope all of hard working guys are not to pis... with my postings, 
since you all do a great job.

thanks again.



On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 16:19:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 11/7/2013 12:58 AM, tester wrote:

 how do make that comiler work?
 [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual 
 Studio 2013

 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand 
 the pathes and
 run as admin or not - it will not find the libs (user32)

 windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit


 There's an attachment to 
 https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11457 with an 
 sc.ini, does that one work for you?
Nov 07 2013
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/7/2013 9:12 AM, tester wrote:

 i uninstalled d selveral times and reinstalled. itried it with the zip file.
 nothing worked.. after a reboot i reinstalled with the installer and used the
 (bug) appended sc.ini. didn't work. i then replaced all occurences of
 %VCINSTALLDIR% and %WindowsSdkDir% with the actual path such as C:\Program
Files
 (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC and it wouldn't work. i worked with these
 modifications when i started as administrator.


What is the exact error you are getting? And did it work with 2.063?
Nov 07 2013
parent reply "tester" <tester test.com> writes:
1.) it didn't find user32
2.) it worked with 2063 perfectly - used the zip files download, 
adaped the ini. that was under 8.0/visual 2012.


On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 17:47:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 11/7/2013 9:12 AM, tester wrote:

 i uninstalled d selveral times and reinstalled. itried it with 
 the zip file.
 nothing worked.. after a reboot i reinstalled with the 
 installer and used the
 (bug) appended sc.ini. didn't work. i then replaced all 
 occurences of
 %VCINSTALLDIR% and %WindowsSdkDir% with the actual path such 
 as C:\Program Files
 (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC and it wouldn't work. i 
 worked with these
 modifications when i started as administrator.


 What is the exact error you are getting? And did it work with 
 2.063?
Nov 07 2013
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/7/2013 10:04 AM, tester wrote:

 1.) it didn't find user32


Please, I need to know exactly what happened. Run it from the command line, 
cut&paste the screen output.


 2.) it worked with 2063 perfectly - used the zip files download, adaped the
ini.
 that was under 8.0/visual 2012.


 On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 17:47:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 11/7/2013 9:12 AM, tester wrote:

 i uninstalled d selveral times and reinstalled. itried it with the zip file.
 nothing worked.. after a reboot i reinstalled with the installer and used the
 (bug) appended sc.ini. didn't work. i then replaced all occurences of
 %VCINSTALLDIR% and %WindowsSdkDir% with the actual path such as C:\Program
Files
 (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC and it wouldn't work. i worked with these
 modifications when i started as administrator.


 What is the exact error you are getting? And did it work with 2.063?
Nov 07 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nicholas Londey" <londey gmail.com> writes:
Do you have this line in your sc.ini file?

LIB=%LIB%;"%WindowsSdkDir%\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64"

If you do a file search of C:\Program Files (x86) for User32.lib 
where do you find them?
Nov 07 2013
parent reply "tester" <tester test.com> writes:
yes, except hat i replaced %WindowsSdkDir% with the path to that 
directory


On Friday, 8 November 2013 at 02:45:45 UTC, Nicholas Londey wrote:

 Do you have this line in your sc.ini file?

 LIB=%LIB%;"%WindowsSdkDir%\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64"

 If you do a file search of C:\Program Files (x86) for 
 User32.lib where do you find them?
Nov 07 2013
parent "Nicholas Londey" <londey gmail.com> writes:
Can you clarify exactly which version of Visual Studio 2013 you 
are using?

Can you also confirm that you can compile and link a C++ console 
app using your current installation of vs2013?
Nov 08 2013
prev sibling parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 17:12:07 UTC, tester wrote:

 nothing worked.. after a reboot i reinstalled with the 
 installer and used the (bug) appended sc.ini. didn't work. i 
 then replaced all occurences of %VCINSTALLDIR% and 
 %WindowsSdkDir% with the actual path such as C:\Program Files 
 (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC and it wouldn't work. i 
 worked with these modifications when i started as administrator.


It works under administrator? You probably got something 
virtualized. Can you find the dmd folder in VirtualStore in your 
profile?
Nov 08 2013
prev sibling parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote:

 how do make that comiler work?
 [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual Studio 
 2013

 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand 
 the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs 
 (user32)

 windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit


This never worked automatically before so I don't know how this 
could suddenly be a disaster. In this release the installer makes 
an attempt to detect your VC++ and SDK installation and fix up 
sc.ini to point to them.  It's brand new and only a few people 
responded to my call for help testing it. Post your sc.ini and 
the paths to your Windows 8.1 SDK and Visual C++ 2013 
installation.
Nov 07 2013
next sibling parent "Tove" <tove fransson.se> writes:
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 16:25:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote:

 how do make that comiler work?
 [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual 
 Studio 2013

 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand 
 the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs 
 (user32)

 windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit


 This never worked automatically before so I don't know how this 
 could suddenly be a disaster. In this release the installer 
 makes an attempt to detect your VC++ and SDK installation and 
 fix up sc.ini to point to them.  It's brand new and only a few 
 people responded to my call for help testing it. Post your 
 sc.ini and the paths to your Windows 8.1 SDK and Visual C++ 
 2013 installation.


I run 32bit win7 with VS2013 so I normally do not test 
cross-compiling with -m64.

The installer correctly found my installation directories:
VCINSTALLDIR=C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC\
WindowsSdkDir=C:\Program Files\Windows Kits\8.1\

But I needed to add the follwing to PATH(in order to find 
mspdb120.dll)
%VCINSTALLDIR%\bin

And the following to LIB, in order to find shell32.lib
LIB=%LIB%;"%WindowsSdkDir%\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64"

Hope it helps.
Nov 07 2013
prev sibling parent "evilrat" <evilrat666 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 16:25:47 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 08:58:50 UTC, tester wrote:

 how do make that comiler work?
 [Issue 11457] New: Cannot compile 64bit apps with Visual 
 Studio 2013

 this is a desaster for me. was that release tested? if i amand 
 the pathes and run as admin or not - it will not find the libs 
 (user32)

 windoes8.1, visual studio2013, 64bit


 This never worked automatically before so I don't know how this 
 could suddenly be a disaster. In this release the installer 
 makes an attempt to detect your VC++ and SDK installation and 
 fix up sc.ini to point to them.  It's brand new and only a few 
 people responded to my call for help testing it. Post your 
 sc.ini and the paths to your Windows 8.1 SDK and Visual C++ 
 2013 installation.


i have tested windows 8.1/vc 2013/sdk 8.1, here are my paths:

mspdb120 path:
---
%VCINSTALLDIR%\..\VC\bin
---
(full:  C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio
12.0\VC\bin)

libs path:
---
%WindowsSdkDir%\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64
---
(full:  C:\Program Files (x86)\Windows
Kits\8.1\Lib\winv6.3\um\x64)

adding this stuff to sc.ini allows to build with dmd 2.064.2 with
-m64
Nov 09 2013
prev sibling parent Jordi Sayol <g.sayol yahoo.es> writes:
El 06/11/13 11:47, Jordi Sayol ha escrit:

 El 06/11/13 10:55, Jordi Sayol ha escrit:

 El 05/11/13 23:46, Walter Bright ha escrit:

 On 11/5/2013 2:41 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:

 Figured it out.  You used linux/win/installer.nsi.  I have no idea why that
 exists and what it is for.


 It's so you can build the windows installer from a Linux box. I presumed it
was the same.


 It is not the same. The linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi is a fork of
windows/dinstaller.nsi. Mainly differs as it includes everything on itself,
removing the need to download dmd/dmc/libcurl every time dmd is installed.
There are some other minor changes.


 
 Errata: s:linux/windows/dinstaller.nsi:linux/win/installer.nsi:
 
 BTW. Changes on this fork:
 
 - Built in all the needed components. No downloads during installation.
 
 - Checks if another dmd version is already installed, and force to uninstall
it before proceed. If uninstaller fails, installation can be forced by the
command "dmd-2.064.2.exe /f".
 
 - Changes on the Windows system registry fields and values.
 
 - Remove the dmd version 1.
 
 - Not allowed to go ahead if nothing is selected.
 
 - Changed default path to "C:\dmd". If previous dmd installation is set to
another path, installer uses it instead the default.
 
 
 It is prepared to be built by the "linux/dmd_win.sh", which is included on
"linux/build_all.sh" as well.
 


Add to these changes:

- Check if a dmd installer instance is already running (only one at a time
allowed).

- When uninstalling, keeps root dmd folder if some file/folder added by the
user remains there, but not if in "dm" nor "dmd2" folders.

-- 
Jordi Sayol
Nov 07 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Orvid King" <blah38621 gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


Dear world: DO NOT use the windows installer if you have ANYTHING
other than the default installed files in your previous install
folder, because it will delete EVERYTHING. (and this isn't an
understatement, my C:/D folder is now entirely empty but for a
single git index which was locked by my IDE), this means I have
now lost my local checkouts of the D repos, my git-head dmd
install location, as well as my auto-build-install-test scripts,
and my local copy of my JSON work. Thankfully my JSON work wasn't 
even the latest copy anyways. Deleting everything IS NOT 
uninstalling.
Nov 05 2013
next sibling parent Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:
Am Tue, 05 Nov 2013 23:24:02 +0100
schrieb "Orvid King" <blah38621 gmail.com>:


 On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


 
 Dear world: DO NOT use the windows installer if you have ANYTHING
 other than the default installed files in your previous install
 folder, because it will delete EVERYTHING. (and this isn't an
 understatement, my C:/D folder is now entirely empty but for a
 single git index which was locked by my IDE), this means I have
 now lost my local checkouts of the D repos, my git-head dmd
 install location, as well as my auto-build-install-test scripts,
 and my local copy of my JSON work. Thankfully my JSON work wasn't 
 even the latest copy anyways. Deleting everything IS NOT 
 uninstalling.


Stunned silence...
You seem to have gotten away with only few losses. Thanks for
sharing. I can only imagine what that would have done to
someone who has no backups or online repositories for their
code.
I have to say though that I'm sometimes annoyed by accurate
uninstallers that keep a directory because of a log file or
modified configuration. I doesn't hurt to ask for a recursive
deletion of the install directory.

-- 
Marco
Nov 05 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Tuesday, November 05, 2013 23:24:02 Orvid King wrote:

 On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 Ok, this is it:
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


 
 Dear world: DO NOT use the windows installer if you have ANYTHING
 other than the default installed files in your previous install
 folder, because it will delete EVERYTHING. (and this isn't an
 understatement, my C:/D folder is now entirely empty but for a
 single git index which was locked by my IDE), this means I have
 now lost my local checkouts of the D repos, my git-head dmd
 install location, as well as my auto-build-install-test scripts,
 and my local copy of my JSON work. Thankfully my JSON work wasn't
 even the latest copy anyways. Deleting everything IS NOT
 uninstalling.


Please ile a bug report:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues

- Jonathan M Davis
Nov 05 2013
prev sibling parent "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:24:03 UTC, Orvid King wrote:

 On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


 Dear world: DO NOT use the windows installer if you have 
 ANYTHING
 other than the default installed files in your previous install
 folder, because it will delete EVERYTHING. (and this isn't an
 understatement, my C:/D folder is now entirely empty but for a
 single git index which was locked by my IDE), this means I have
 now lost my local checkouts of the D repos, my git-head dmd
 install location, as well as my auto-build-install-test scripts,
 and my local copy of my JSON work. Thankfully my JSON work 
 wasn't even the latest copy anyways. Deleting everything IS NOT 
 uninstalling.


The Windows installer has been replaced with the correct version 
which does not do this.
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


How come that we are at 2.064.2 ? Aren't the last number supposed 
to represent patches after release ?

Anyway I want to attract your attention on 
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11447 . This one is 
a show stopper for SDC.
Nov 05 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "master" <djj shumtn.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


haha, using D as the development of more and more, sent a 
congratulatory message from China, congratulations dmd 2.064.2 
released!
There is another suggestion, when you can join arm compiler, and 
now mobile development too fire!
Nov 05 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
Arch Linux package has been updated.

Was awaiting for some of good stuff from this release for a long 
time :)

There are two extremely disappointing things though:

1)
We still can't get versioning right. Walter has treated release 
candidate as a release which is why we have 2.064.2 right now as 
first actual release. This is not intended approach.

2)
"-allinst" switch introduced as a workaround for incomplete 
implementation of new template instance emitting scheme. Now we 
have essentially 3 different symbol emitting strategies, all of 
them are legal, none is documented/guaranteed and those may work 
in some situations but fail in others (experiments, yay!)

This is exactly the opposite of what I have meant when speaking 
that symbol emitting are needs more attention.
Nov 06 2013
parent reply Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Dicebot, el  6 de November a las 12:43 me escribiste:

 Arch Linux package has been updated.
 
 Was awaiting for some of good stuff from this release for a long
 time :)
 
 There are two extremely disappointing things though:
 
 1)
 We still can't get versioning right. Walter has treated release
 candidate as a release which is why we have 2.064.2 right now as
 first actual release. This is not intended approach.


Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1.
Was that intended or just an error?

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DETIENEN A PADRE, MADRE, TIOS Y ABUELOS: TODOS DEPRAVADOS
	-- Crónica TV
Nov 06 2013
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

 Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1.
 Was that intended or just an error?


It was intended. I felt that 2.064 => 2.064.1 would have been confusing, hence 
2.064 => 2.064.2
Nov 06 2013
next sibling parent reply "Aleksandar Ruzicic" <aleksandar ruzicic.info> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 19:57:40 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:

 On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

 Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and 
 not 1.
 Was that intended or just an error?


 It was intended. I felt that 2.064 => 2.064.1 would have been 
 confusing, hence 2.064 => 2.064.2


But were there 2.064 and 2.064.1 releases? If I'm not mistaken 
the last release was 2.063.2 (at least judging by the website), 
next major release should be 2.064, not 2.064.1 or 2.064.2 (those 
are patch releases, not major ones).

If 2.064.1 was a RC then it was badly named. As IMHO RC versions 
must be marked with rc, as betas are marked with b "flag". 
Something like 2.064-rc.1, 2.064-rc.2, ... 2.064 (stable/major 
release), 2.064.1 (patch release), ...

This (-rc.xx) is how RC versions should be marked as per SEMVER 
"standard" (http://semver.org), although I know that D doesn't 
follow semantic versioning as defined in that standard.


Other than this thing with versioning I must say that I'm very 
pleased with changes in this version, so congrats to all people 
involved! :)
Nov 06 2013
parent reply =?UTF-8?B?Ikx1w61z?= Marques" <luis luismarques.eu> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 20:11:13 UTC, Aleksandar Ruzicic 
wrote:

 versions must be marked with rc, as betas are marked with b 
 "flag". Something like 2.064-rc.1, 2.064-rc.2, ... 2.064 
 (stable/major release), 2.064.1 (patch release), ...

 This (-rc.xx) is how RC versions should be marked as per SEMVER 
 "standard" (http://semver.org), although I know that D doesn't 
 follow semantic versioning as defined in that standard.


The D version numbers fail requirement 2 of semantic versioning:

2. A normal version number MUST take the form X.Y.Z where X, Y, 
and Z are non-negative integers, and MUST NOT contain leading 
zeroes.

I know that was discussed somewhere, but I don't know/recall why 
there is a leading zero in the minor version number.
Nov 06 2013
parent Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
, el  6 de November a las 21:53 me escribiste:

 On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 20:11:13 UTC, Aleksandar Ruzicic
 wrote:

versions must be marked with rc, as betas are marked with b
"flag". Something like 2.064-rc.1, 2.064-rc.2, ... 2.064
(stable/major release), 2.064.1 (patch release), ...

This (-rc.xx) is how RC versions should be marked as per SEMVER
"standard" (http://semver.org), although I know that D doesn't
follow semantic versioning as defined in that standard.


 
 The D version numbers fail requirement 2 of semantic versioning:
 
 2. A normal version number MUST take the form X.Y.Z where X, Y, and
 Z are non-negative integers, and MUST NOT contain leading zeroes.
 
 I know that was discussed somewhere, but I don't know/recall why
 there is a leading zero in the minor version number.


I think because back in the stone age, it was hard to sort versions like
this: 1.5 and 1.15. Lexicographically speaking 1.5 > 1.15.

I don't think there is any reason now for leading zero, just historical
reasons. It would be awesome to get DMD follow semantic versioning as
much as possible. Even when is not really a library, I guess the
language specification can be taken as the API. The only problem is from
time to time some tiny non backwards compatible changes are made and
I don't anyone would like to bump the major version because of that. But
I think an exception could be made for that, and I think those changes
appear less and less frequently, so it shouldn't be a big issue.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All men are born equal
But quite a few get over it
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-11-06 20:57, Walter Bright wrote:


 It was intended. I felt that 2.064 => 2.064.1 would have been confusing,
 hence 2.064 => 2.064.2


That's what's happening if you start to add new digits. The first 
release should have possibly been 2.064.0. BTW, there was a 2.063.1, if 
I recall correctly.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Nov 06 2013
parent Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Jacob Carlborg, el  6 de November a las 22:06 me escribiste:

 On 2013-11-06 20:57, Walter Bright wrote:
 

It was intended. I felt that 2.064 => 2.064.1 would have been confusing,
hence 2.064 => 2.064.2


 
 That's what's happening if you start to add new digits. The first
 release should have possibly been 2.064.0. BTW, there was a 2.063.1,
 if I recall correctly.


I also have the impression I saw a 2.063.1. There are certainly posts in
the devel list about that version, there is none with that version in
the download directory:
http://downloads.dlang.org/releases/2013/

Maybe the discussion was about 2.063.1 but then Walter name it 2.063.2,
or maybe it was removed from the web server?

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Software is like sex: it's better when it's free.
	-- Linus Torvalds
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling parent reply Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Walter Bright, el  6 de November a las 11:57 me escribiste:

 On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1.
Was that intended or just an error?


 
 It was intended. I felt that 2.064 => 2.064.1 would have been
 confusing, hence 2.064 => 2.064.2


That's funny, I find it very confusing to jump from 2.064 to 2.064.2.
2.064 is implied to be 2.064.0, as version 1 is implied to be 1.0 (and
as a floating point number 1 is 1.0, not 1.1).

Every other project out there uses this convention. So I wonder why do
you find 2.064 => 2.064.1 confusing.

Looking at previous versions I just noticed you did the same with 2.063,
I didn't notice then. But please, could you consider changing that
naming scheme and using 2.0XX.1 as the 1st patchlevel (see the relation?
:).

Thanks.

And I would also want to thanks for another great release, with a great
changelog despite the protests! :D

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A lo que Peperino respondióles: aquel que tenga sabañones que se los
moje, aquel que padece calvicie no padece un osito, no es bueno comer
lechón en día de gastritis, no mezcleis el vino con la sandía, sacad la
basura después de las ocho, en caso de emergencia rompa el vidrio con
el martillo, a cien metros desvio por Pavón.
	-- Peperino Pómoro
Nov 06 2013
parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, November 07, 2013 00:11:37 Leandro Lucarella wrote:

 Walter Bright, el 6 de November a las 11:57 me escribiste:

 On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1.
Was that intended or just an error?


 
 It was intended. I felt that 2.064 => 2.064.1 would have been
 confusing, hence 2.064 => 2.064.2


 
 That's funny, I find it very confusing to jump from 2.064 to 2.064.2.
 2.064 is implied to be 2.064.0, as version 1 is implied to be 1.0 (and
 as a floating point number 1 is 1.0, not 1.1).
 
 Every other project out there uses this convention. So I wonder why do
 you find 2.064 => 2.064.1 confusing.


Yeah. Going from 2.064 or 2.064.0 to 2.064.1 would be pretty standard. Jumping 
straight from 2.064 to 2.064.2 is what's likely to confuse most people.


 Looking at previous versions I just noticed you did the same with 2.063,
 I didn't notice then. But please, could you consider changing that
 naming scheme and using 2.0XX.1 as the 1st patchlevel (see the relation?


I had assumed that there was a 2.063.1 prior to 2.063.2 but clearly wasn't 
paying enough attention.

- Jonathan M Davis
Nov 06 2013
parent "Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 7 November 2013 at 01:12:14 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 I had assumed that there was a 2.063.1 prior to 2.063.2 but 
 clearly wasn't
 paying enough attention.

 - Jonathan M Davis


Found the explanation:

http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dmd-internals/2013-June/006569.html

The v2.063 was an aborted 'release'. 2.063.1 is what was 
released. (The compiler
& libraries are unchanged, what happened was the documentation 
was fixed.)
Nov 07 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Jordi Sayol <g.sayol yahoo.es> writes:
El 05/11/13 23:08, Walter Bright ha escrit:

 Ok, this is it:
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 


Linux libraries "libphobos2.so.0.64.0" still include libcurl versioned symbols.
These libraries can only be used on Linux systems based on Debian.

-- 
Jordi Sayol
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


Release notes?
Nov 06 2013
parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 12:02:48 UTC, Gary Willoughby 
wrote:

 Release notes?


http://dlang.org/changelog
Nov 06 2013
parent reply "Szymon Gatner" <noemail gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 12:44:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 12:02:48 UTC, Gary Willoughby 
 wrote:

 Release notes?


 http://dlang.org/changelog


There is a a bug in the "new eponymous syntax" example in the 
changelog:

template isIntOrFloat(T)
{
     static if (is(T == int) || is(T == float))
         enum isIntOrFloat = true;
     else
         enum isIntOrFloat = true; // <======== BUG
}

I am just learning D but those change-logs are awesome! Don't 
think I ever seen anything like this.
Nov 06 2013
parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 11/6/13, Szymon Gatner <noemail gmail.com> wrote:

 There is a a bug in the "new eponymous syntax" example in the
 changelog


This was fixed, the website hasn't been updated.
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jordi Sayol <g.sayol yahoo.es> writes:
El 05/11/13 23:08, Walter Bright ha escrit:

 Ok, this is it:
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 


In "dmd.2.064.2.zip", src/VERSION contains "2.064". Should be "2.064.2"
-- 
Jordi Sayol
Nov 06 2013
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/6/2013 5:16 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote:

 In "dmd.2.064.2.zip", src/VERSION contains "2.064". Should be "2.064.2"


I deliberately didn't do that because it would have required rebuilding all the 
binaries just for that.
Nov 06 2013
parent reply Leandro Lucarella <luca llucax.com.ar> writes:
Walter Bright, el  6 de November a las 12:01 me escribiste:

 On 11/6/2013 5:16 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote:

In "dmd.2.064.2.zip", src/VERSION contains "2.064". Should be "2.064.2"


 
 I deliberately didn't do that because it would have required
 rebuilding all the binaries just for that.


And that's bad because.... ?

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Guinness Book of Records" holds the record for being the most
stolen book in public libraries
Nov 06 2013
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/6/2013 3:20 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:

 Walter Bright, el  6 de November a las 12:01 me escribiste:

 On 11/6/2013 5:16 AM, Jordi Sayol wrote:

 In "dmd.2.064.2.zip", src/VERSION contains "2.064". Should be "2.064.2"


 I deliberately didn't do that because it would have required
 rebuilding all the binaries just for that.


 And that's bad because.... ?


Time, and then wondering what is different when it isn't different
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
06-Nov-2013 02:08, Walter Bright пишет:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


Bah... did I miss 2.064 and 2.064.1 ? :)

As others noted - please do not use patch level before the release has 
actually happened.

All in all there are:
betas
RCs
and release itself with subsequent patch-versions

All should have their own numbers and never intersect or affect one 
another.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?Ikx1w61z?= Marques" <luis luismarques.eu> writes:
I'm confused. The changelog pages links to 
http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip, while the download page 
links to 
http://downloads.dlang.org/releases/2013/dmd.2.064.2.zip. Which 
is the correct file/version?

Also, at least on OS X (with both versions) I get a link error in 
the wrap examples:

$ rdmd main.d
Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
   
"_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv1302__T7forwardS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_1iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_2iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_3iZ8__T3
wdZ3fwdMFNbNdNfZi", 
referenced from:
       
_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b20
dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv 
in main.o
   
"_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv1732__T7forwardS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_0iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_1iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_2iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_3iZ8__
3fwdZ3fwdMFNbNdNfZi 
... etc.
Nov 06 2013
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 11/6/13 10:42 AM, "Luís Marques" <luis luismarques.eu>" wrote:

 I'm confused. The changelog pages links to
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.zip, while the download page links
 to http://downloads.dlang.org/releases/2013/dmd.2.064.2.zip. Which is
 the correct file/version?


The former. I've updated all links to point for now to the generic 
download page.


 Also, at least on OS X (with both versions) I get a link error in the
 wrap examples:

 $ rdmd main.d
 Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
 "_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv1302__T7forwardS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_1iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5


479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_2iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_3iZ8__T3fwdZ3fwdMFNbNdNfZi",

 referenced from:
 _D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv
 in main.o
 "_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv1732__T7forwardS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_0iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5


479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_1iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_2iS426_D3std8typecons26__T4wrapTC4main9IDrawableZ26__T4wrapTC4main9ImageDrawZ4Impl320__T8mixinAllVAyaa149_6f766572726964652052657475726e5479706521285461726765744d656d626572735b305d2e747970652920647261774c696e6528506172616d65746572547970655475706c6521285461726765744d656d626572
735b305d2e7479706529206172677329207b2072657475726e205f777261705f736f757263652e647261774c696e6528666f72776172642161726773293b207dZ8drawLineMFiiiiZv8_param_3iZ8__T3fwdZ3fwdMFNbNdNfZi

 .... etc.


I confirm that. Walter, could this have something to do with the new 
approach to compiling templates?


Andrei
Nov 06 2013
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/6/2013 11:22 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 I confirm that. Walter, could this have something to do with the new approach
to
 compiling templates?


It might. You can confirm by seeing if it works with -allinst switch.
Nov 06 2013
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 11/6/13 11:56 AM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 11/6/2013 11:22 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 I confirm that. Walter, could this have something to do with the new
 approach to
 compiling templates?


 It might. You can confirm by seeing if it works with -allinst switch.


I confirm it works when compiled with -allinst.

Andrei
Nov 06 2013
next sibling parent =?UTF-8?B?Ikx1w61z?= Marques" <luis luismarques.eu> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 20:06:54 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 11/6/13 11:56 AM, Walter Bright wrote:

 It might. You can confirm by seeing if it works with -allinst 
 switch.


 I confirm it works when compiled with -allinst.


Is that switch new? It is not documented in the changelog.
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?Ikx1w61z?= Marques" <luis luismarques.eu> writes:
Is it possible to build something like wrap, so that it can be 
given a wrapping class instead of a wrapping interface?

I was trying to build something very similar to wrap, and at 
first glance it seems like wrap might suit me, except that I 
wanted to wrap the wolf in the "class Sheep"s clothes, not in an 
ISheep.

(typecons.d(2864): Error: class 
std.typecons.wrap!(B).wrap!(A).Impl base type must be interface, 
not main.B)
Nov 06 2013
parent "QAston" <qaston gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 20:46:23 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:

 Is it possible to build something like wrap, so that it can be 
 given a wrapping class instead of a wrapping interface?

 I was trying to build something very similar to wrap, and at 
 first glance it seems like wrap might suit me, except that I 
 wanted to wrap the wolf in the "class Sheep"s clothes, not in 
 an ISheep.

 (typecons.d(2864): Error: class 
 std.typecons.wrap!(B).wrap!(A).Impl base type must be 
 interface, not main.B)


classes have implementations and state you need to initialize. 
It's possible to implement that in wrap but more problematic.
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan Crapuchettes <jcrapuchettes gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:08:50 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:


 Ok, this is it:
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


First, I would like to thank everyone who has put hard work into the 
latest release and am really excited about the enhancements and fixed 
bugs.

Second, I agree with others that this should have been 2.064, not 
2.064.2. This is an initial release not a patch/minor release.

Third, the fix for the issue at https://d.puremagic.com/issues/
show_bug.cgi?id=10690 was not included in the release and is a blocking 
bug for my company's code base. Till there is a new release with that fix 
included, we will not be able to use 2.064.

Many thanks again for a great programming language,
Jonathan from EMSI
Nov 06 2013
next sibling parent Jonathan Crapuchettes <jcrapuchettes gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:27:01 +0000, Jonathan Crapuchettes wrote:


 On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:08:50 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
 

 Ok, this is it:
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


 
 First, I would like to thank everyone who has put hard work into the
 latest release and am really excited about the enhancements and fixed
 bugs.
 
 Second, I agree with others that this should have been 2.064, not
 2.064.2. This is an initial release not a patch/minor release.
 
 Third, the fix for the issue at https://d.puremagic.com/issues/
 show_bug.cgi?id=10690 was not included in the release and is a blocking
 bug for my company's code base. Till there is a new release with that
 fix included, we will not be able to use 2.064.
 
 Many thanks again for a great programming language,
 Jonathan from EMSI


I just double checked the code in issue 10690 and it works just fine. I 
had assumed that my code was similar enough to not have been worth an 
additional bug report. I was wrong. I'll log a bug report and try to work 
around the assertion failure in std.algorithm.

Thanks again,
Jonathan
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling parent Jonathan Crapuchettes <jcrapuchettes gmail.com> writes:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:37:56 +0000, Jonathan Crapuchettes wrote:


 On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:27:01 +0000, Jonathan Crapuchettes wrote:
 

 On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:08:50 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
 

 Ok, this is it:
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


 
 First, I would like to thank everyone who has put hard work into the
 latest release and am really excited about the enhancements and fixed
 bugs.
 
 Second, I agree with others that this should have been 2.064, not
 2.064.2. This is an initial release not a patch/minor release.
 
 Third, the fix for the issue at https://d.puremagic.com/issues/
 show_bug.cgi?id=10690 was not included in the release and is a blocking
 bug for my company's code base. Till there is a new release with that
 fix included, we will not be able to use 2.064.
 
 Many thanks again for a great programming language,
 Jonathan from EMSI


 
 I just double checked the code in issue 10690 and it works just fine. I
 had assumed that my code was similar enough to not have been worth an
 additional bug report. I was wrong. I'll log a bug report and try to
 work around the assertion failure in std.algorithm.
 
 Thanks again,
 Jonathan


Disregard the last post. The issue still exists; I was just looking at 
the wrong file.
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "nazriel" <spam dzfl.pl> writes:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2013 at 22:08:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


Good job everyone!
DPaste is already using it
Nov 06 2013
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/6/2013 3:43 PM, nazriel wrote:

 Good job everyone!
 DPaste is already using it


Nice!
Nov 06 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-11-05 23:08, Walter Bright wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


The changelog is missing issue 10700. I though that part was 
automatically generated.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Nov 06 2013
parent reply Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 11/7/13, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:

 The changelog is missing issue 10700. I though that part was
 automatically generated.


The list of issues fixed were generated on October 20th, and that bug
was not marked as fixed in bugzilla at the time. There's likely a set
of additional bugs which are not listed in the changelog, but it's
hard to both autogenerate these and then have to manually track which
bugs were merged into the 2.064 branch. Everything is done ad-hoc, so
you'll end up with this sort of problem.
Nov 08 2013
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-11-08 19:37, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:


 The list of issues fixed were generated on October 20th, and that bug
 was not marked as fixed in bugzilla at the time. There's likely a set
 of additional bugs which are not listed in the changelog, but it's
 hard to both autogenerate these and then have to manually track which
 bugs were merged into the 2.064 branch. Everything is done ad-hoc, so
 you'll end up with this sort of problem.


Aha, I see. The documentation wasn't merged on October 20th so the issue 
hadn't got closed.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Nov 08 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
BTW, I have noticed that this version was compiled without 
-D=PULL93 so transition switch list again only has `tls`. Is 
there any specific reason to remove this switch after actual 
deprecation? It still can be very useful for porting D1 to D2 :)
Nov 08 2013
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-11-08 14:17, Dicebot wrote:

 BTW, I have noticed that this version was compiled without -D=PULL93 so
 transition switch list again only has `tls`. Is there any specific
 reason to remove this switch after actual deprecation? It still can be
 very useful for porting D1 to D2 :)


Yeah, I still have DWT Mac OS X left to port.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Nov 08 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> writes:
On 11/05/2013 11:08 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


Would you mind to update the rpms with a fixed build?
http://forum.dlang.org/post/527C3ED0.8030508 dawg.eu
Nov 08 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-11-05 23:08, Walter Bright wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


The version says "DMD64 D Compiler v2.064" instead of "DMD64 D Compiler 
v2.064.2".

The Mac OS X installer is an old version. It's installs the correct 
version of the compiler but the text in the installer is outdated.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Nov 11 2013
next sibling parent Jordi Sayol <g.sayol yahoo.es> writes:
El 11/11/13 19:00, Jacob Carlborg ha escrit:

 
 The version says "DMD64 D Compiler v2.064" instead of "DMD64 D Compiler
v2.064.2".
 


Same on Linux.

On v2.064.2:
...
DMD64 D Compiler v2.064
...

On v2.063.2:
...
DMD64 D Compiler v2.063.2
...

-- 
Jordi Sayol
Nov 11 2013
prev sibling parent Rory McGuire <rjmcguire gmail.com> writes:
On 11 Nov 2013 20:32, "Jordi Sayol" <g.sayol yahoo.es> wrote:

 El 11/11/13 19:00, Jacob Carlborg ha escrit:

 The version says "DMD64 D Compiler v2.064" instead of "DMD64 D Compiler




v2.064.2".




Walter said the version number was not updated before compile, sounded like
he preferred not to have to recompile everything just for the version
number.



 Nov 11 2013



prev sibling  parent  Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+dng gmail.com>  writes:


On 05/11/2013 22:08, Walter Bright wrote:

 Ok, this is it:

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.fedora.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd_2.064.2-0_i386.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.i386.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2-0.openSUSE.x86_64.rpm
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd-2.064.2.exe
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.zip
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.064.2.dmg
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_amd64.deb
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/libphobos2-64_2.064.2-0_i386.deb


Regarding the new eponymous template syntax, has this change been 
updated in the language spec? Seems not.
Does this syntax support template constraints? According to the 
compiler, seems not, but this should be in the spec.



 Feb 06 2014