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? josť
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?
 
 josť
 
 
 

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? josť

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,

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

 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

 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,

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

 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

 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