www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - DMD 0.87 release

reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
May 06 2004
next sibling parent Sergey Kryzhanovsky <ksv sunbay.com> writes:
  Hello.

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

ftp://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.zip ...\dmd\bin\dmd.exe Digital Mars D Compiler v0.88 :) Best regards, Sergey Kryzhanovsky.
May 06 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c7f3uc$1njm$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

I'm disapointed, the license didn't change. I don't know what to do. what does this realy mean? "(ii) Any derived versions of this software (howsoever modified) remain the sole property of Synesis Software." Doesn't it mean that if I improve that software in any way those improvements are property of Synesis? For instance: I decided not to use recls for 2 reasons: - not in D style - unimplemented features I needed. If I could live with the first I might have implemented the missing (but planed) features of recls. Wouldn't the product of my work be property of Synesis? Am I wrong? Now an hipotetical senario (this specific case cannot happen because I created my own Directory listing class before having access to recls): If after the hipotetical work on recls (effectivelly work donnated to Synesis) I decided to create my how implementation of a directory listing package. That's when the real problems begin! I'm afraid that Synesis then would say that I couldn't have done it before seeing the recls code, therefore all my work is Synesis property. That's why I don't want to download any source code under the Synesis license. IANAL and that's why I have to play safe. I don't care how Matthew chooses to make his contributions available. I just don't want to download source code with that license. can we have separate downloads for LGPL/Artisic and SSSSL? Ant
May 07 2004
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Ant" <Ant_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c7fj04$2j5r$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm disapointed, the license didn't change.

I know. It will, it's just that Matthew and myself haven't gotten to it yet.
 I don't know what to do.

 what does this realy mean?
 "(ii) Any derived versions of this software (howsoever modified)
 remain the sole property of Synesis Software."

 Doesn't it mean that if I improve that software in any way
 those improvements are property of Synesis?
 For instance: I decided not to use recls for 2 reasons:
 - not in D style
 - unimplemented features I needed.
 If I could live with the first I might have implemented the missing
 (but planed) features of recls. Wouldn't the product of my work
 be property of Synesis? Am I wrong?
 Now an hipotetical senario (this specific case cannot happen because
 I created my own Directory listing class before having access to recls):
 If after the hipotetical work on recls (effectivelly work donnated to
 Synesis) I decided to create my how implementation of a directory
 listing package. That's when the real problems begin! I'm afraid
 that Synesis then would say that I couldn't have done it before
 seeing the recls code, therefore all my work is Synesis property.
 That's why I don't want to download any source code under the
 Synesis license.
 IANAL and that's why I have to play safe.

 I don't care how Matthew chooses to make his contributions available.
 I just don't want to download source code with that license.

 can we have separate downloads for LGPL/Artisic and SSSSL?

 Ant

May 07 2004
prev sibling parent reply imr1984 <imr1984_member pathlink.com> writes:
im very disappointed that the with operator still does not work with structs :(
Im also disappointed that the AssertError class hasnt been fixed.

In article <c7f3uc$1njm$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

May 07 2004
next sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
imr1984 wrote:

 im very disappointed that the with operator still does not work with structs :(
 Im also disappointed that the AssertError class hasnt been fixed.

I think we all are. With the time it's taking to put in a fix that's already been written, at this rate we've not enough version numbers left to get everything ready for 1.0, unless we start going in 0.001 increments from 0.9. But at least it seems Walter's finally acknowledged my fix and is going to put it in 0.90, which at this rate is going to be announced in a post titled "DMD 0.89 release".... Stewart. -- My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
May 07 2004
prev sibling parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"imr1984" <imr1984_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c7fnsq$2qlh$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 im very disappointed that the with operator still does not work with

 Im also disappointed that the AssertError class hasnt been fixed.

I've attached std.asserterror.d if you want to start using it now <g>.
May 07 2004