digitalmars.D - DMD 0.96 release
- "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> Jul 22 2004
- Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> Jul 22 2004
- Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> Jul 22 2004
- Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> Jul 24 2004
- "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> Jul 25 2004
- "Daniel Kos" <unodgs tlen.pl> Jul 24 2004
- J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> Jul 24 2004
- Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> Jul 26 2004
- "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> Jul 26 2004
Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Jul 22 2004
Does this mean utf.d has been changed since 0.95? And if so, were there any changes to encode/decode? (just wondering if I should rewrite the changes I made based on what's in 0.96) Sean
Jul 22 2004
In article <cdphin$171q$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...Does this mean utf.d has been changed since 0.95? And if so, were there any changes to encode/decode? (just wondering if I should rewrite the changes I made based on what's in 0.96)
Never mind, they compare the same in a diff. Sean
Jul 22 2004
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:42:06 -0700, Walter wrote:Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
from d change log for 0.96Added exec* functions to std.process. (thanks to Matthew Wilson)
my linux system doesn't have execvpe, from http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/ghc/docs/5.02.3/set/process-primitives.html (the first one that come up from google) "Note that execvpe is not provided by the POSIX standard, and must be written by hand." do we really want it to be on phobos like it is now? Ant
Jul 24 2004
"Ant" <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:pan.2004.07.24.21.54.49.545093 yahoo.ca...On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:42:06 -0700, Walter wrote:Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
from d change log for 0.96Added exec* functions to std.process. (thanks to Matthew Wilson)
my linux system doesn't have execvpe, from http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/ghc/docs/5.02.3/set/process-primitives.html (the first one that come up from google) "Note that execvpe is not provided by the POSIX standard, and must be written by hand." do we really want it to be on phobos like it is now?
Hmm. I guess it needs revisiting.
Jul 25 2004
DWT from dsource.org still crashes the compiler when I try to compile the project. Dnia Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:42:06 -0700, Walter <newshound digitalmars.com> napisał:Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
-- uno (unodgs tlen.pl)
Jul 24 2004
Daniel Kos wrote:DWT from dsource.org still crashes the compiler when I try to compile the project.
Ummm. You might want to talk to the DWT team about that: http://www.dsource.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=1 (By the way, they've been trying to get it to compile, too.)Dnia Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:42:06 -0700, Walter <newshound digitalmars.com> napisał:Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
-- Justin (a/k/a jcc7) http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
Jul 24 2004
Walter wrote:Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
"Added std.perf (thanks to Matthew Wilson)" We have quite a few undocumented bits of Phobos already, but it's something of an occasion to see a whole module undocumented. Is this going to be fixed soon? "Fixed mishandling of out parameters in variadic functions." Unless I keep blinking, I don't see anything on how to use inout/out variadically. Or is this talking about out among the fixed parameters preceding the ...? We could actually do with inout/out variadicity, perhaps with the obvious syntax void qwert(out ...); at least if we're going to eventually create a successor to scanf. And please see digitalmars.D/5809 (sorry, I meant to post that on d.D.bugs) digitalmars.D/5810 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.
Jul 26 2004
"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ce2n03$oi2$2 digitaldaemon.com...Walter wrote:Bug fixes. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
"Added std.perf (thanks to Matthew Wilson)" We have quite a few undocumented bits of Phobos already, but it's something of an occasion to see a whole module undocumented. Is this going to be fixed soon?
Matthew has promised to write the .html bit for it."Fixed mishandling of out parameters in variadic functions." Unless I keep blinking, I don't see anything on how to use inout/out variadically. Or is this talking about out among the fixed parameters preceding the ...?
The latter. There was a reported bug with out parameters appearing before the ...And please see digitalmars.D/5809 (sorry, I meant to post that on d.D.bugs) digitalmars.D/5810
Thanks!
Jul 26 2004









Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> 