www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - DMD 0.169 release

reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Bug fixes. \dmd\samples\d\pi.d sped up by 40%.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
Oct 08 2006
next sibling parent reply Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Bug fixes. \dmd\samples\d\pi.d sped up by 40%.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Walter, I'm really beginning to suspect that you're clairvoyant ! How did you find out about this gamedev thread ? ( http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?whichpage=1&pagesiz =25&topic_id=418236 ) Thanks for the fixes ! :-D
Oct 08 2006
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Tom S wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Bug fixes. \dmd\samples\d\pi.d sped up by 40%.

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

Walter, I'm really beginning to suspect that you're clairvoyant ! How did you find out about this gamedev thread ? ( http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?whichpage=1&pagesiz =25&topic_id=418236 )

People tell me about them!
 Thanks for the fixes ! :-D

No prob.
Oct 08 2006
prev sibling parent reply "nobody_" <spam spam.spam> writes:
~ Wondering as to how this would effect the shootout ~
?????

 Walter, I'm really beginning to suspect that you're clairvoyant ! How did 
 you find out about this gamedev thread ? ( 
 http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?whichpage=1&pagesiz
=25&topic_id=418236 )

 Thanks for the fixes ! :-D 

Oct 08 2006
parent reply Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
nobody_ wrote:
 ~ Wondering as to how this would effect the shootout ~
 ?????
 
 Walter, I'm really beginning to suspect that you're clairvoyant ! How did 
 you find out about this gamedev thread ? ( 
 http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?whichpage=1&pagesiz
=25&topic_id=418236 )

 Thanks for the fixes ! :-D 


It won't, but getting the tail-recursion optimization back will ;)
Oct 08 2006
parent "nobody_" <spam spam.spam> writes:
"Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:egbuqt$1qq6$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 nobody_ wrote:
 ~ Wondering as to how this would effect the shootout ~
 ?????

 Walter, I'm really beginning to suspect that you're clairvoyant ! How 
 did you find out about this gamedev thread ? ( 
 http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?whichpage=1&pagesiz
=25&topic_id=418236 )

 Thanks for the fixes ! :-D


It won't, but getting the tail-recursion optimization back will ;)

Mkay, I thought it might effect pidigits. :( (btw. those questionmarks were supposed to be a smiley (weaboo style). :)
Oct 08 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Bug fixes. \dmd\samples\d\pi.d sped up by 40%.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

I think you're almost squashing more bugs than are reported atm ;) Anyway, the latest releases have had a download speed that is between 1/20th and 1/10th of the speed of the past (at least I know a couple that have experienced this). Not a big problem for me, but might signify some troubles serverside? -- Lars Ivar Igesund blog at http://larsivi.net DSource & #D: larsivi
Oct 08 2006
parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 
 Bug fixes. \dmd\samples\d\pi.d sped up by 40%.

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

I think you're almost squashing more bugs than are reported atm ;)

There has been a big upsurge in the rate of new bugs being posted in the last month. Generally, that implies a big upsurge in the uses people are putting D to!
 Anyway, the latest releases have had a download speed that is between 1/20th
 and 1/10th of the speed of the past (at least I know a couple that have
 experienced this). Not a big problem for me, but might signify some
 troubles serverside?

I have no idea.
Oct 08 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Tydr Schnubbis <fake address.dude> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Bug fixes. \dmd\samples\d\pi.d sped up by 40%.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=386 Import conflicts are no more! :D
Oct 08 2006
parent clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Tydr Schnubbis wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Bug fixes. \dmd\samples\d\pi.d sped up by 40%.

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

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=386 Import conflicts are no more! :D

horray!
Oct 08 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Kirk McDonald <kirklin.mcdonald gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Bug fixes. \dmd\samples\d\pi.d sped up by 40%.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

I'm not sure what it was, but 0.168 broke Pyd (it would compile but the resulting DLL wouldn't load), and 0.169 fixed it again. So, uh, kudos! -- Kirk McDonald Pyd: Wrapping Python with D http://pyd.dsource.org
Oct 08 2006
prev sibling parent reply Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
 Fixed Bugzilla 395, but there are probably more UTF bugs in
 std.regexp.

Hmm. Fixing Phobos whenever something is brought up, is probably a good tack. OTOH, quite some work may be saved if we study enough to get a feeling for what _not_ to even try to implement. Time savings should be substantial. An example: UTF-bugs in STD-Regexp may be one particularly prominent case. One might want to develop a Robust library in D. One might instead be business oriented, which means, get something that works "somewhat" like you need, and then callously copy that. --- The opposite tack is to adopt the PCRE library as such. Then we'd of course submit to the whims of the PCRC guys, but in the decades past us, we've seen that this guy really is at it for its own sake. (As especially opposed by "for the money".) Another problem is, the UTF definition keeps changing every once in a while. Why not let Professionals take care of the whole shebang?
Oct 12 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
std.regexp has been around for 6+ years. It comes from one I did in C++ 
that was very intensively tested. I think it has held up very well. The 
only thing it lacks is being thoroughly tested for UTF. I don't think 
that's justification for starting over with something else.
Oct 12 2006
parent reply Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 std.regexp has been around for 6+ years. It comes from one I did in C++ 
 that was very intensively tested. I think it has held up very well. The 
 only thing it lacks is being thoroughly tested for UTF. I don't think 
 that's justification for starting over with something else.

Can you clear up a mystery about it? From looking at the code, it looks as though it can do lazy matching (references to REnmq, "minimal munch", and parsing of *?, +?, etc), and it's passed the simple tests I've tried on it. But it's not documented! So is the lazy matching: (a) working, but not documented, or (b) unfinished and buggy?
Oct 12 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 std.regexp has been around for 6+ years. It comes from one I did in 
 C++ that was very intensively tested. I think it has held up very 
 well. The only thing it lacks is being thoroughly tested for UTF. I 
 don't think that's justification for starting over with something else.

Can you clear up a mystery about it? From looking at the code, it looks as though it can do lazy matching (references to REnmq, "minimal munch", and parsing of *?, +?, etc), and it's passed the simple tests I've tried on it. But it's not documented! So is the lazy matching: (a) working, but not documented, or (b) unfinished and buggy?

(a) lazy documentation <g>.
Oct 13 2006
parent reply Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Don Clugston wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 std.regexp has been around for 6+ years. It comes from one I did in 
 C++ that was very intensively tested. I think it has held up very 
 well. The only thing it lacks is being thoroughly tested for UTF. I 
 don't think that's justification for starting over with something else.

Can you clear up a mystery about it? From looking at the code, it looks as though it can do lazy matching (references to REnmq, "minimal munch", and parsing of *?, +?, etc), and it's passed the simple tests I've tried on it. But it's not documented! So is the lazy matching: (a) working, but not documented, or (b) unfinished and buggy?

(a) lazy documentation <g>.

Awesome! I hoped that was it. We could have an Easter Egg competition -- find the coolest thing in D, that isn't documented. <g> A memorable previous entry was the simplified function template syntax.
Oct 13 2006
parent Markus Dangl <danglm in.tum.de> writes:
Don Clugston schrieb:
 Awesome! I hoped that was it. We could have an Easter Egg competition -- 
 find the coolest thing in D, that isn't documented. <g>
 A memorable previous entry was the simplified function template syntax.

I want credit for finding it if there will ever be such a competition *g*
Oct 13 2006