Re: Pain when changing DMD version...
On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 17:17:39 UTC, JerryR wrote: On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 16:05:18 UTC, bachmeier wrote: But 2.060 was released in 2012... Yes I know it's old but and the reason was to avoid breakage that already had happened before. I know that sometimes this (Breakage) is inevitable as the language grows, but my concern here is that the language isn't new, and it's in version +2, and again I was changing from 2.060 to 2.066... which looking now is already lagged since the new version is 2.069. JerryR. I would strongly recommend moving straight to 2.069. It will take very little extra effort compared to going to 2.066 and there's been a lot of improvements and bugfixes since then. Some of the failures to compile you're seeing might even be bugs in 2.066!
Re: Pain when changing DMD version...
On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 17:20:02 UTC, JerryR wrote: On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 14:48:46 UTC, John Colvin wrote: Often when you see breakage it's the compiler actually enforcing a pre-existing rule that the code in question broke. So that made me think, there is any flag that I could turn on, and pass by over those errors? JerryR. No, because then we'd be stuck supporting every piece of code that used to compile, whether or not it was ever legal code. Illegal code that compiles is a bug; bugs must be fixed. There are some changes that could be handled in the way you describe, e.g. the -dip25 flag. Doing more of these risks getting in to complicated interactions between them. It's a reasonable request, but it's not going to happen except in carefully limited cases.
Re: Pain when changing DMD version...
On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 17:17:39 UTC, JerryR wrote: On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 16:05:18 UTC, bachmeier wrote: But 2.060 was released in 2012... Yes I know it's old but and the reason was to avoid breakage that already had happened before. I know that sometimes this (Breakage) is inevitable as the language grows, but my concern here is that the language isn't new, and it's in version +2, and again I was changing from 2.060 to 2.066... which looking now is already lagged since the new version is 2.069. JerryR. Based on my experience you should not see much breakage going from 2.066 to 2.069. When I moved from 2.062 to 2.064 there were a lot of problems. I don't expect to see that going forward. The quality of releases AFAICT is much better today.
Re: Pain when changing DMD version...
On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 17:20:02 UTC, JerryR wrote: On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 14:48:46 UTC, John Colvin wrote: Often when you see breakage it's the compiler actually enforcing a pre-existing rule that the code in question broke. So that made me think, there is any flag that I could turn on, and pass by over those errors? JerryR. No. What John Colvin is referring to are bugs in the compiler that were fixed since 2.060.
Re: Pain when changing DMD version...
On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 14:48:46 UTC, John Colvin wrote: Often when you see breakage it's the compiler actually enforcing a pre-existing rule that the code in question broke. So that made me think, there is any flag that I could turn on, and pass by over those errors? JerryR.
Re: Pain when changing DMD version...
On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 16:05:18 UTC, bachmeier wrote: But 2.060 was released in 2012... Yes I know it's old but and the reason was to avoid breakage that already had happened before. I know that sometimes this (Breakage) is inevitable as the language grows, but my concern here is that the language isn't new, and it's in version +2, and again I was changing from 2.060 to 2.066... which looking now is already lagged since the new version is 2.069. JerryR.
Re: Pain when changing DMD version...
On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 13:16:02 UTC, JerryR wrote: On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 05:50:06 UTC, Israel wrote: On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 04:06:40 UTC, JerryR wrote: A couple of months ago, I decided to upgrade my DMD to a new version: 2.066, and today I needed compile that project again, which a year ago I had compiled with DMD 2.060. [...] Upgrading GTKD is definitely the best route... ...you wont have to fix anything on the library's side. Yes that's a way of thinking. But the problem that I'm facing right now is that I haven't tried to compile the others projects yet, so I may get some other errors too. I usually see people on forums and reddit/hackernews complaining about Rust and the breakage along the different versions, back then they had not released the version 1.00 yet. So I wasn't expecting breakage along 2.XX in D. JerryR. But 2.060 was released in 2012. Recent compiler releases have been much more stable, in terms of not breaking much working code.
Re: Pain when changing DMD version...
On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 13:16:02 UTC, JerryR wrote: On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 05:50:06 UTC, Israel wrote: On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 04:06:40 UTC, JerryR wrote: [...] Upgrading GTKD is definitely the best route... ...you wont have to fix anything on the library's side. Yes that's a way of thinking. But the problem that I'm facing right now is that I haven't tried to compile the others projects yet, so I may get some other errors too. I usually see people on forums and reddit/hackernews complaining about Rust and the breakage along the different versions, back then they had not released the version 1.00 yet. So I wasn't expecting breakage along 2.XX in D. JerryR. Often when you see breakage it's the compiler actually enforcing a pre-existing rule that the code in question broke.
Re: Pain when changing DMD version...
On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 05:50:06 UTC, Israel wrote: On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 04:06:40 UTC, JerryR wrote: A couple of months ago, I decided to upgrade my DMD to a new version: 2.066, and today I needed compile that project again, which a year ago I had compiled with DMD 2.060. [...] Upgrading GTKD is definitely the best route... ...you wont have to fix anything on the library's side. Yes that's a way of thinking. But the problem that I'm facing right now is that I haven't tried to compile the others projects yet, so I may get some other errors too. I usually see people on forums and reddit/hackernews complaining about Rust and the breakage along the different versions, back then they had not released the version 1.00 yet. So I wasn't expecting breakage along 2.XX in D. JerryR.
Re: Pain when changing DMD version...
On Thursday, 24 December 2015 at 04:06:40 UTC, JerryR wrote: A couple of months ago, I decided to upgrade my DMD to a new version: 2.066, and today I needed compile that project again, which a year ago I had compiled with DMD 2.060. [...] Upgrading GTKD is definitely the best route. Most likely GTKD will have done some changes since the last time you used it so even if you upgrade GTKD you will still get errors but at least GTKD will now correspond to the compiler version so your errors will be fixable on your projects side and you wont have to fix anything on the library's side.
