www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - DMD 0.115 release

reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Fixed my bungled integration of std.socket.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Feb 28 2005
next sibling parent Vathix <vathix dprogramming.com> writes:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:06:00 -0800, Walter <newshound digitalmars.com>  
wrote:


 Fixed my bungled integration of std.socket.

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


hooray :)
Feb 28 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply jicman <jicman_member pathlink.com> writes:
Walter says...

Fixed my bungled integration of std.socket.

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


Walter,

I just downloaded 115 and when I run the command on the DOS prompt I get this,

1:26:05.53>dmd
Digital Mars D Compiler v0.114
Copyright (c) 1999-2005 by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright
Documentation: www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html
Usage:
dmd files.d ... { -switch }

files.d        D source files
-c             do not link
-d             allow deprecated features
-g             add symbolic debug info
-gt            add trace profiling hooks
-v             verbose
-O             optimize
-odobjdir      write object files to directory objdir
-offilename    name output file to filename
-op            do not strip paths from source file
-Ipath         where to look for imports
-Llinkerflag   pass linkerflag to link
-debug         compile in debug code
-debug=level   compile in debug code <= level
-debug=ident   compile in debug code identified by ident
-inline        do function inlining
-release       compile release version
-unittest      compile in unit tests
-version=level compile in version code >= level
-version=ident compile in version code identified by ident

is this version 115 or 114?

josé
Feb 28 2005
next sibling parent "IkeaTheSofa -.- Marcus" <ikea_the_sofa hotmail.com> writes:
jicman <jicman_member pathlink.com> wrote in
news:d012mk$1q0i$1 digitaldaemon.com: 


 is this version 115 or 114?
 
 josé
 
 
 


It never ends.. ;)
Feb 28 2005
prev sibling parent reply John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
jicman wrote:

 Walter says...
 

Fixed my bungled integration of std.socket.

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


 
 
 Walter,
 
 I just downloaded 115 and when I run the command on the DOS prompt I get this,
 
 1:26:05.53>dmd
 Digital Mars D Compiler v0.114
 Copyright (c) 1999-2005 by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright
 Documentation: www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html
 Usage:
 dmd files.d ... { -switch }
 
 files.d        D source files
 -c             do not link
 -d             allow deprecated features
 -g             add symbolic debug info
 -gt            add trace profiling hooks
 -v             verbose
 -O             optimize
 -odobjdir      write object files to directory objdir
 -offilename    name output file to filename
 -op            do not strip paths from source file
 -Ipath         where to look for imports
 -Llinkerflag   pass linkerflag to link
 -debug         compile in debug code
 -debug=level   compile in debug code <= level
 -debug=ident   compile in debug code identified by ident
 -inline        do function inlining
 -release       compile release version
 -unittest      compile in unit tests
 -version=level compile in version code >= level
 -version=ident compile in version code identified by ident
 
 is this version 115 or 114?
 
 josé
 
 


He didn't change the compiler code at all, so it would remain at version 
  114.  There's no point in him changing the compiler source as well 
just because he needed to fix other files included in the package.

-JJR
Feb 28 2005
parent reply jicman <jicman_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <d013g9$1qhs$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...


He didn't change the compiler code at all, so it would remain at version 
  114.  There's no point in him changing the compiler source as well 
just because he needed to fix other files included in the package.


Don't get me wrong.  I am not complaining.  I just downloaded dmd115.zip, which
tells me that I've downloaded version 0.115, but when I run dmd it is 114.  Here
is a question: is 0.115 going to be zipped under dmd116.zip?

Just a thought...  And please, don't get me wrong, I appreciate what everyone is
doing.  I just want to be clear on it.

thanks.

jic
Mar 01 2005
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"jicman" <jicman_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:d0228t$30td$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In article <d013g9$1qhs$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...


He didn't change the compiler code at all, so it would remain at version
  114.  There's no point in him changing the compiler source as well
just because he needed to fix other files included in the package.


 Don't get me wrong.  I am not complaining.  I just downloaded dmd115.zip,


which

 tells me that I've downloaded version 0.115, but when I run dmd it is 114.


Here

 is a question: is 0.115 going to be zipped under dmd116.zip?

 Just a thought...  And please, don't get me wrong, I appreciate what


everyone is

 doing.  I just want to be clear on it.


The version on the package is the version for the package - if the
individual items in it were not changed, they will bear the version number
of the last package in which they did change. The next update will be 116,
and dmd.exe for that will be 116.
Mar 01 2005
next sibling parent jicman <jicman_member pathlink.com> writes:
Thanks, Walter.  As we say in Spanish, gracias! :-)


In article <d029pi$9b4$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

"jicman" <jicman_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:d0228t$30td$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In article <d013g9$1qhs$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...


He didn't change the compiler code at all, so it would remain at version
  114.  There's no point in him changing the compiler source as well
just because he needed to fix other files included in the package.


 Don't get me wrong.  I am not complaining.  I just downloaded dmd115.zip,


which

 tells me that I've downloaded version 0.115, but when I run dmd it is 114.


Here

 is a question: is 0.115 going to be zipped under dmd116.zip?

 Just a thought...  And please, don't get me wrong, I appreciate what


everyone is

 doing.  I just want to be clear on it.


The version on the package is the version for the package - if the
individual items in it were not changed, they will bear the version number
of the last package in which they did change. The next update will be 116,
and dmd.exe for that will be 116.
Mar 01 2005
prev sibling parent Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Walter wrote:

 "jicman" <jicman_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:d0228t$30td$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 

In article <d013g9$1qhs$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...



He didn't change the compiler code at all, so it would remain at version
 114.  There's no point in him changing the compiler source as well
just because he needed to fix other files included in the package.


Don't get me wrong.  I am not complaining.  I just downloaded dmd115.zip,


 
 which
 

tells me that I've downloaded version 0.115, but when I run dmd it is 114.


 
 Here
 

is a question: is 0.115 going to be zipped under dmd116.zip?

Just a thought...  And please, don't get me wrong, I appreciate what


 
 everyone is
 

doing.  I just want to be clear on it.


 
 
 The version on the package is the version for the package - if the
 individual items in it were not changed, they will bear the version number
 of the last package in which they did change. The next update will be 116,
 and dmd.exe for that will be 116.


Er, it's not really as simple as that. The point of version numbers (be 
they sequential, staggered, or otherwise distinct) is to take care of 
_all_ situations. Not unusual is what just happened to D (.114 vs .115).

That is the _only_ reason some products have 99.999.999 version 
numbering. The first group means changes that _will_ break code -- it's 
used with Old software, too. The second group is for changes that _may_ 
introduce trivial problems with old source code. And the third group is 
for changes that don't matter for existing code. (Like the .114 vs .115 
changes.)

Now, the Linux community introduced the concept of odd and even minor 
numbers of releases. We may not be at that level with D, but we should 
prepare for the day when everyone expects this numbering.

The point Anders and others have been trying (in vain) to get through, 
is that no matter what gets changed, at least for the distros, it really 
does matter what the release number is. -- And, the point is not really 
_how_ you number them, it is only about having unique identifiers for 
unique releases. (So, a perfect .11x and its just as perfect sister 
release, that only differs in a side library not getting forgot, really 
_do_ have to have _different_ identifiers. (=release numbers) ))

Not having this as a habit _will_ cause havoc with automatic package 
maintaining software, with the users (" I got 115, how come you can 
compile this and I don't? And you also got 115!) (And none of these guys 
figured out that person A downloaded his package 3 minutes before person B.)

Having read the above, would it be nice to download package V.11x and 
way later discover that the compiler considers the package V.11(x-1) ?
Mar 01 2005
prev sibling parent Paul Bonser <misterpib gmail.com> writes:
Walter wrote:

 Fixed my bungled integration of std.socket.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 


Yay for that. I just started doing network programming and was started 
to pull my hair out over what I was doing wrong... upgraded to .115 just 
now and it works fine...

-- 
-PIB

--
"C++ also supports the notion of *friends*: cooperative classes that
are permitted to see each other's private parts." - Grady Booch
Mar 03 2005