www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - The VII PPPR (Pending Peeves Progress Review)

reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
We're now halfway there again ... well at least halfway towards 0.300....

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PendingPeeves

(Switching to linking to prowiki.org rather than wikiservice.at per 
Helmut's suggestion....)


The decision was made to get rid of bit as a basic type.  This is about 
the second time that a change to the language with significant effect on 
existing code has been proposed in one post on the newsgroup and then 
implemented in the next version.  Doing this has made two of the pending 
peeves irrelevant.

At least it's not the worst instance I've seen where instead of filling 
in a hole, one breaks off the piece containing the hole.


Does anybody remember when, back at 0.93, Walter said:
"Barring a very, very, compelling case, this is it for 1.0 language 
features.  There are a lot more things I want to do, but this has got to 
be enough for 1.0."

I lose count of the number of new features that have been added since 
then.  Most recently, there has been the scope(exit) scope(success) 
scope(failure) statements.  While they're a nice idea, I must admit that 
adding new features has detracted from the goal of getting D up to scratch.


The "Covariance doesn't work with interfaces" issue was wrongly marked 
as done.  In fact, only one of the interface covariance issues is fixed. 
  The other one is still there.

digitalmars.D.bugs/1726
digitalmars.D.bugs/3287
http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65

And the spec has been cleaned up in a few places over the last few days. 
  For example, array operations have finally been *mostly* removed from 
the spec.


And the issue of translating the Windows API headers has cropped up 
again.  There have been a number of efforts to do this, but they all 
have their imperfections as far as I can tell.  I've started another 
effort that'll hopefully be the best of them all....

digitalmars.D.announce/3194

Once this is done, then I suppose we'll be ready to put it in as 
std.c.windows instead of the translation of a tiny fragment of the API 
that's there at the moment....


It seems that people are more than ready to take into their own hands 
some of the things that Walter hasn't bothered to do in such fields as 
tracking bugs.  First there was DStress, and then there was Bugzilla.

http://d.puremagic.com/bugzilla/

(Next question: What will Bugzilla eventually do to the future of 
pending peeves?)

Keep up the good work!

Until next time....

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Mar 22 2006
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:
 
 
 And the issue of translating the Windows API headers has cropped up 
 again.  There have been a number of efforts to do this, but they all 
 have their imperfections as far as I can tell.  I've started another 
 effort that'll hopefully be the best of them all....
 
 digitalmars.D.announce/3194

For Windows headers to be included in a standard library distribution, they *must* be based on public domain header files. As much as I'd love improved Windows functionality, I won't include headers in Ares that violate the MS copyright, and I think Walter feels the same for Phobos. Sean
Mar 22 2006
next sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 And the issue of translating the Windows API headers has cropped up 
 again.  There have been a number of efforts to do this, but they all 
 have their imperfections as far as I can tell.  I've started another 
 effort that'll hopefully be the best of them all....

 digitalmars.D.announce/3194

For Windows headers to be included in a standard library distribution, they *must* be based on public domain header files. As much as I'd love improved Windows functionality, I won't include headers in Ares that violate the MS copyright, and I think Walter feels the same for Phobos.

I heard Don the first time. That's why I stated in that thread that anyone is more than welcome to use MinGW or similar to contribute to my effort. I still don't get the whole M$ copyright issue. It's as if M$ was trying to stop anybody from programming in anything but C(++). Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Mar 22 2006
next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 And the issue of translating the Windows API headers has cropped up 
 again.  There have been a number of efforts to do this, but they all 
 have their imperfections as far as I can tell.  I've started another 
 effort that'll hopefully be the best of them all....

 digitalmars.D.announce/3194

For Windows headers to be included in a standard library distribution, they *must* be based on public domain header files. As much as I'd love improved Windows functionality, I won't include headers in Ares that violate the MS copyright, and I think Walter feels the same for Phobos.

I heard Don the first time. That's why I stated in that thread that anyone is more than welcome to use MinGW or similar to contribute to my effort. I still don't get the whole M$ copyright issue. It's as if M$ was trying to stop anybody from programming in anything but C(++).

I agree that it's completely silly, but we must assume that it could happen. I'm certainly not willing to pay the legal fees to fight MS in court, and neither do I want to be forced to strip modules out of the library later on and possibly be forced to take production code offline until a suitable replacement could be found. Sean
Mar 22 2006
prev sibling parent pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dvs9eh$1hue$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...

I still don't get the whole M$ copyright issue.  It's as if M$ was 
trying to stop anybody from programming in anything but C(++).

Whether it was deliberate or a side-effect of sloppy licensing, the end result is that Microsoft has made it very hard to code against the Win32 runtime without using their compiler/IDE. Its not so much that MS doesn't want you to use C++, they just don't care how hard life is for you if you don't back their compiler. The "coup de gras" of such offensive behavior from MS would have to be with the availability of the ATL. In order to work with certain components (say, anything WTL based), or code with certain libraries, one needs a copy of the ATL libraries. Unfortunately, the only way to get a hold of these is to purchase a copy of Visual C++(6 or better). The ATL libs are not listed as redistributable components, so this is the only option for legitimate development. - EricAnderton at yahoo
Mar 22 2006
prev sibling parent reply "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Sean Kelly" <sean f4.ca> wrote in message 
news:dvs7u2$1fmf$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 And the issue of translating the Windows API headers has cropped up 
 again.  There have been a number of efforts to do this, but they all have 
 their imperfections as far as I can tell.  I've started another effort 
 that'll hopefully be the best of them all....

 digitalmars.D.announce/3194

For Windows headers to be included in a standard library distribution, they *must* be based on public domain header files. As much as I'd love improved Windows functionality, I won't include headers in Ares that violate the MS copyright, and I think Walter feels the same for Phobos.

For gdc, and non-Digital Mars distributions, that's true. But for dmd, I do have a license from Microsoft on the windows header files. But it would be better if the windows.d files are public domain, then there's no issue at all.
Mar 22 2006
parent reply Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 "Sean Kelly" wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 
 And the issue of translating the Windows API headers has cropped
 up again.  There have been a number of efforts to do this, but
 they all have their imperfections as far as I can tell.  I've
 started another effort that'll hopefully be the best of them
 all....
 
 digitalmars.D.announce/3194
 

distribution, they *must* be based on public domain header files. As much as I'd love improved Windows functionality, I won't include headers in Ares that violate the MS copyright, and I think Walter feels the same for Phobos.

For gdc, and non-Digital Mars distributions, that's true. But for dmd, I do have a license from Microsoft on the windows header files. But it would be better if the windows.d files are public domain, then there's no issue at all.

IMHO, it would be appropriate if DMD used "genuine" M$ headers, and GDC used PD headers. After all, DMD is a closed-source product, and it comes from an established, single vendor. (So what, if it's free as in beer.) DMD is also the Official D compiler, as in credibility with the suits.
Mar 24 2006
parent "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede nospam.org> wrote in message 
news:44241111.8040701 nospam.org...
 Walter Bright wrote:
 But it would be better if the windows.d files are public domain, then
  there's no issue at all.

used PD headers. After all, DMD is a closed-source product, and it comes from an established, single vendor. (So what, if it's free as in beer.) DMD is also the Official D compiler, as in credibility with the suits.

I've been redoing many of the Phobos imports as public domain, especially ones that are just interfaces to C code, and I don't see any credibility problems with it.
Mar 24 2006
prev sibling parent reply "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:dvrhdv$kmm$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 (Next question: What will Bugzilla eventually do to the future of pending 
 peeves?)

Rather than maintain scattered lists of bugs, since Brad is doing a great job with bugzilla, and it seems to be catching on, I suggest having Bugzilla be the "master bug list", and that all the pending peeves get posted there. That'll also make it easy to check the status of the pending peeves in the pp page, just click on the link!
Mar 22 2006
parent reply Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:dvrhdv$kmm$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
 (Next question: What will Bugzilla eventually do to the future of
 pending peeves?)

Rather than maintain scattered lists of bugs, since Brad is doing a great job with bugzilla, and it seems to be catching on, I suggest having Bugzilla be the "master bug list", and that all the pending peeves get posted there. That'll also make it easy to check the status of the pending peeves in the pp page, just click on the link!

Hmm. Then D.bugs should be scrapped?
Mar 24 2006
parent "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede nospam.org> wrote in message 
news:44241192.2030004 nospam.org...
 Walter Bright wrote:
 That'll also make it easy to check the status of the pending peeves
 in the pp page, just click on the link!

Hmm. Then D.bugs should be scrapped?

Not at all. Bugzilla doesn't work well as a discussion forum.about bugs in general or particular bugs.
Mar 24 2006