• Thomas Kuehne (122/122) Jun 18 2007 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
• Lutger (2/2) Jun 18 2007 Great tips thank you. These deserve a place on a website and a link from...
• Sean Kelly (4/12) Jun 18 2007 Well that's unfortunate. I don't suppose unittest has gotten
• Daniel Keep (4/19) Jun 18 2007 I suspect this is because invariant is now a declaration, a storage
• Sean Kelly (3/19) Jun 18 2007 Well sure. But adding parens breaks consistency with other similar bloc...
• Henning Hasemann (12/14) Jun 18 2007 What I find more confusing is the "overloading" of keywords with
• Walter Bright (3/5) Jun 18 2007 It's a dessert topping *and* a floor wax!
• Carlos Santander (4/43) Jun 18 2007 To avoid this ugly hack, how about supporting invariant(){} in Dv1?
• Walter Bright (10/142) Jun 18 2007 This is why I put the string aliases into dmd 1.016. Then, just replace
• Thomas Kuehne (23/30) Jun 18 2007 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
• Georg Wrede (6/9) Jun 18 2007
• Bill Baxter (6/17) Jun 18 2007 Aside from this NG there is the digitalmars.D.announce NG. Did you miss...
• Georg Wrede (5/24) Jun 18 2007 Heh, after two days of nothing new in D.announce, i blink, and pow! it's...
• David L. Davis (11/11) Jun 19 2007 Walter Bright Wrote:
• BCS (3/8) Jun 19 2007 I don't think dstress will end up being run on both 1.015 and 1.016
• torhu (5/19) Jul 01 2007 Is there any reason not to use 'in' instead? stringz looks a bit alien

Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Below are a few code samples that might help you to make your code
compatible with DMD-1.016 as well as DMD-2.000.


1) What compiler am I running?
==============================









Usually I try to avoid any kind of version detection, however
the class invariant changes (see below) require it this time.
If you are only using Phobos and not alternatives like Tango
the language version can be accessed via:








2) 'string', 'wstring', 'dstring'
=================================

If you defined a 'string' type or alias replace it with myString or
similar. The same is valid for 'wstring' and 'dstring'.


3) Object.toString
==================

In DMD-1 the signature is
	char[] Object.toString();
however in DMD-2 the signature is
	const(char)[] Object.toString();

An ad-hock solution would be:







This solution works reliably but is 'ugly' and doesn't scale
very well. Thus the slightly longer version:














4) class invariants
===================

This is the only real trouble spot so far. DMD-1 uses
	invariant{ ... assert(...); ... }
however DMD-2 uses
	invariant(){ ... assert(...); ... }

There are basically two approaches. Both require dmd_version from
1) "What compiler am I running?" (see above). First the complete
mixin solution:










This might be a quick hack however in most cases you are going to
lose nice features like syntax highlighting. Invariants are
prohibited from calling 'public' member function but calling
'private' member functions is OK:














5) string functions
===================

Where ever reasonable replace 'char[]' with 'string' (see 3) above).
Due to my general coding style this was basically a search/replace
operation that requires almost no further code changes. In the case of
Flectioned 2 additional ".dup"s were needed.


6) C-strings
============

Sometime I have to interface with C libries this "const char*" is
required:







The mixin in required because the content has to be syntactically
correct and "const(char)" isn't a valid DMD-1 construct.


7) the 'rest'
=============

Depending on your coding style you might have to deal with 'final'
parameters and 'final' foreach value variables, but in my case 
(3873 lines of cross OS code) not a single change was required.

Thomas

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=fZxN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:

Great tips thank you. These deserve a place on a website and a link from 
digitalmars imho.

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 
 4) class invariants
 ===================
 
 This is the only real trouble spot so far. DMD-1 uses
 	invariant{ ... assert(...); ... }
 however DMD-2 uses
 	invariant(){ ... assert(...); ... }

Well that's unfortunate.  I don't suppose unittest has gotten 
parenthesis as well?


Sean

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:

Sean Kelly wrote:
 Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 4) class invariants
 ===================

 This is the only real trouble spot so far. DMD-1 uses
     invariant{ ... assert(...); ... }
 however DMD-2 uses
     invariant(){ ... assert(...); ... }

 
 Well that's unfortunate.  I don't suppose unittest has gotten
 parenthesis as well?
 
 
 Sean

I suspect this is because invariant is now a declaration, a storage
class *and* a type constructor.

	-- Daniel

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

Daniel Keep wrote:
 
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 4) class invariants
 ===================

 This is the only real trouble spot so far. DMD-1 uses
     invariant{ ... assert(...); ... }
 however DMD-2 uses
     invariant(){ ... assert(...); ... }

 Well that's unfortunate.  I don't suppose unittest has gotten
 parenthesis as well?

 
 I suspect this is because invariant is now a declaration, a storage
 class *and* a type constructor.

Well sure.  But adding parens breaks consistency with other similar blocks.


Sean

Henning Hasemann <hhasemann web.de> writes:

Am Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:57:05 -0700
schrieb Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca>:

 Well sure.  But adding parens breaks consistency with other similar
 blocks.

What I find more confusing is the "overloading" of keywords with
different meanings or even worse *similar* meanings, especially for
programmers that down "grow with the language" like most readers of
this NG but will start using it at some point in the future.
They have to learn a lot of things in order to use a keyword correctly.

Henning

-- 
GPG Public Key:
http://keyserver.ganneff.de:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xDDD6D36D41911851
Fingerprint: 344F 4072 F038 BB9E B35D  E6AB DDD6 D36D 4191 1851

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Daniel Keep wrote:
 I suspect this is because invariant is now a declaration, a storage
 class *and* a type constructor.

It's a dessert topping *and* a floor wax!

Carlos Santander <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:

Thomas Kuehne escribió:
 4) class invariants
 ===================
 
 This is the only real trouble spot so far. DMD-1 uses
 	invariant{ ... assert(...); ... }
 however DMD-2 uses
 	invariant(){ ... assert(...); ... }
 
 There are basically two approaches. Both require dmd_version from
 1) "What compiler am I running?" (see above). First the complete
 mixin solution:
 








 
 This might be a quick hack however in most cases you are going to
 lose nice features like syntax highlighting. Invariants are
 prohibited from calling 'public' member function but calling
 'private' member functions is OK:
 












 

To avoid this ugly hack, how about supporting invariant(){} in Dv1?


-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 Below are a few code samples that might help you to make your code
 compatible with DMD-1.016 as well as DMD-2.000.
 
 
 1) What compiler am I running?
 ==============================
 








It's obvious I need to put together a predefined compiler version.

 If you are only using Phobos and not alternatives like Tango
 the language version can be accessed via:
 





 
 
 2) 'string', 'wstring', 'dstring'
 =================================
 
 If you defined a 'string' type or alias replace it with myString or
 similar. The same is valid for 'wstring' and 'dstring'.
 
 
 3) Object.toString
 ==================
 
 In DMD-1 the signature is
 	char[] Object.toString();
 however in DMD-2 the signature is
 	const(char)[] Object.toString();
 
 An ad-hock solution would be:
 





 
 This solution works reliably but is 'ugly' and doesn't scale
 very well. Thus the slightly longer version:
 












This is why I put the string aliases into dmd 1.016. Then, just replace 
the char[] with string, and it'll work with both 1.0 and 2.0.

 
 4) class invariants
 ===================
 
 This is the only real trouble spot so far. DMD-1 uses
 	invariant{ ... assert(...); ... }
 however DMD-2 uses
 	invariant(){ ... assert(...); ... }

I fixed the 1.015 compiler to accept the () as being optional. So, use 
the () for both, and it should work.

 
 There are basically two approaches. Both require dmd_version from
 1) "What compiler am I running?" (see above). First the complete
 mixin solution:
 








 
 This might be a quick hack however in most cases you are going to
 lose nice features like syntax highlighting. Invariants are
 prohibited from calling 'public' member function but calling
 'private' member functions is OK:
 












 
 5) string functions
 ===================
 
 Where ever reasonable replace 'char[]' with 'string' (see 3) above).
 Due to my general coding style this was basically a search/replace
 operation that requires almost no further code changes. In the case of
 Flectioned 2 additional ".dup"s were needed.

I find that doing a mechanical global search/replace of char[] with 
string will successfully convert 95+% of the code, with a little touchup 
here and there.

 
 
 6) C-strings
 ============
 
 Sometime I have to interface with C libries this "const char*" is
 required:
 





 
 The mixin in required because the content has to be syntactically
 correct and "const(char)" isn't a valid DMD-1 construct.

Hmm, I like the stringz alias. Or maybe cstring?

 
 
 7) the 'rest'
 =============
 
 Depending on your coding style you might have to deal with 'final'
 parameters and 'final' foreach value variables, but in my case 
 (3873 lines of cross OS code) not a single change was required.

Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Walter Bright schrieb am 2007-06-18:
 Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 Below are a few code samples that might help you to make your code
 compatible with DMD-1.016 as well as DMD-2.000.


[...]

 This is why I put the string aliases into dmd 1.016. Then, just replace 
 the char[] with string, and it'll work with both 1.0 and 2.0.

[...]

 I fixed the 1.015 compiler to accept the () as being optional. So, use 
 the () for both, and it should work.

The main problem is that both changes aren't yet incorporated into GDC
and unlike GDC DMD can't generate 64bit code.

Thomas


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=fcLc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> writes:

Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

<snip lots of amazing D future info>

I hope I'm not the only one who's looking at this in amazement. Have I 
grossly skipped something fundamentally obvious in this NG, or is it 
that some info about future improvements are distributed through 
channels other than this NG?

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Georg Wrede wrote:
 Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 
 <snip lots of amazing D future info>
 
 I hope I'm not the only one who's looking at this in amazement. Have I 
 grossly skipped something fundamentally obvious in this NG, or is it 
 that some info about future improvements are distributed through 
 channels other than this NG?

Aside from this NG there is the digitalmars.D.announce NG.  Did you miss 
the announcement of D2.0 over there?

Nothing mysterious here.  I think Thomas just got busy figuring out how 
D2.0 works the minute Walter uploaded it.

--bb

Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 Georg Wrede wrote:
 Thomas Kuehne wrote:

 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 <snip lots of amazing D future info>

 I hope I'm not the only one who's looking at this in amazement. Have I 
 grossly skipped something fundamentally obvious in this NG, or is it 
 that some info about future improvements are distributed through 
 channels other than this NG?

 
 Aside from this NG there is the digitalmars.D.announce NG.  Did you miss 
 the announcement of D2.0 over there?
 
 Nothing mysterious here.  I think Thomas just got busy figuring out how 
 D2.0 works the minute Walter uploaded it.

Heh, after two days of nothing new in D.announce, i blink, and pow! it's 
full of breathtaking news.

Sigh.

PS, Congrats to Walter!

David L. Davis <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:

Walter Bright Wrote:

Walter thanks for all the hare work!

I just wanted to point out that the v1.016 compiler still show that it's
v1.015...the zip does show 17.Jun.07 updated files instead of 05.Jun.07 that
the v1.015 zip had, but I believe this will throw off Thomas's version compares
in code.

commandline running dmd v1.016:
------------------
C:\>cd dmd

C:\dmd>dmd
Digital Mars D Compiler v1.015
Copyright (c) 1999-2007 by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright
Documentation: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html

David L. Davis

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to David,

 I just wanted to point out that the v1.016 compiler still show that
 it's v1.015...the zip does show 17.Jun.07 updated files instead of

DMD 1.016 uses the same dmd.exe as 1.015 the only difference is in phobos.

 05.Jun.07 that the v1.015 zip had, but I believe this will throw off
 Thomas's version compares in code.
 

I don't think dstress will end up being run on both 1.015 and 1.016

torhu <fake address.dude> writes:

Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 6) C-strings
 ============
 
 Sometime I have to interface with C libries this "const char*" is
 required:
 





 
 The mixin in required because the content has to be syntactically
 correct and "const(char)" isn't a valid DMD-1 construct.


Is there any reason not to use 'in' instead?  stringz looks a bit alien 
in C prototypes.

Phobos does just that, so I suppose it's okay:

char* strcpy(char* s1, in char* s2);