GtkD is a D binding and OO wrapper of Gtk+ and is released on the LGPL
license.
New in this Release:
* wraps GTK+ 2.14.x series api (and relative libraries: glib, cairo, pango,
etc.)
* fixes for widgets on x86_64 system
* minor adjustments for improved performance on windows
GtkD 1.1 is now
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:07:57 +0200, huurd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use dwt+dwtx, a hello word exe size is 22M, after I use upx the size
is 800kb.
exe file appears to be a lot of meaningless repeat, how to remove it?
It shouldn't be so big without debug info. Check your compilation
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Would it make sense to have shortcuts to Rebindable that automatically
apply const or invariant? something like:
template tconst(T)
{
alias Rebindable!(const(T)) tconst;
}
Using whatever you think is best for a symbol name. Just
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Would it make sense to have shortcuts to Rebindable that automatically
apply const or invariant? something like:
template tconst(T)
{
alias Rebindable!(const(T)) tconst;
}
Using whatever you think is best
Peter Venkman wrote:
So, for me the question would be, when will D2 support come to existing
libraries -at least the most popular ones-?
A lot of libraries depend on tango, so I wouldn't expect too much support
before a D2 Tango is released.
Lutger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Venkman wrote:
So, for me the question would be, when will D2 support come to existing
libraries -at least the most popular ones-?
A lot of libraries depend on tango, so I wouldn't expect too much support
before a D2
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:19:27 -0500, bearophile wrote:
In this post I show few things I have found/collected in the last weeks
related to the performance of the code compiled with DMD.
[..]
The D1 docs strongly suggest to use foreach every time it's possible,
avoiding to use the less handy
Marcin Kuszczak wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
Aarti_pl wrote:
...and this high-level design is IMHO mistake. Especially mapping
relations from db to objects.
Well maybe someone will give me examples where domain objects are more
useful than relations? From my observations presentation
Frits van Bommel escribió:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Now that D2 is being developed, I don't know how much time it will
take until it is finished. Once it is, what will happen to D1? Will
anyone still use it?
I think I might keep using it for a while yet. D2 has some features I
dislike. On the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1672
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2451
Summary: Cannot add a Variant to associative array
Product: D
Version: 2.020
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: critical
Priority: P2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=340
--- Comment #6 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-13 21:30 ---
I think if you want to define forward references in the restricted classical
definition of lexical precedence, then bugs like 1667 would not be covered by
this one. But it
12 matches
Mail list logo
