I've made some changes following recentish discussion. The changes are:
- Do away with Windows 9x versioning, given that Windows 9x is no longer supported either
by Microsoft or by DMD (implemented).
- a DECLARE_HANDLE template to declare handle types (I think it's fully implemented,
please
On 02/08/2013 06:51, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I would seriously take into consideration to just drop the "A" versions. D is
unicode by
nature, the "W" versions are supported by all NT systems (since Windows 95
using MSLU),
and using an ANSI version of a function also just begs for bugs if typed as
On 01/08/2013 21:59, Stewart Gordon wrote:
- Just use the D const pointer syntax where we need it, rather than this CPtr
template
that was made for D1 compatibility.
Now implemented.
- Declare all constants as enums, in order to force inlining.
Now in the translation instructions, but mos
Moreover, while getting rid of Windows 9x has simplified the versioning, I was just
thinking about how far back along the NT line we should go.
At the moment, we go back to NT4. But it's now harder to verify whether it supports a
given API since the MSDN docs now seem to start at Win2k (even f
On 8/1/2013 3:28 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
What do people think we should do? Opinions please!
Even supporting XP is problematic because of the badly broken thread local
storage support for DLLs in it, which D heavily relies on. I wouldn't say this
for a C++ compiler, but for D, I kinda feel
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 16:00:09 -0700, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 8/1/2013 3:28 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
What do people think we should do? Opinions please!
Even supporting XP is problematic because of the badly broken thread
local storage support for DLLs in it, which D heavily relies on. I
On Thursday, 1 August 2013 at 23:00:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/1/2013 3:28 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
What do people think we should do? Opinions please!
Even supporting XP is problematic because of the badly broken
thread local storage support for DLLs in it, which D heavily
relies o
On Thursday, 1 August 2013 at 20:59:31 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote:
Along these lines, I'm thinking of making a few more changes:
- Just use the D const pointer syntax where we need it, rather
than this CPtr template that was made for D1 compatibility.
- Declare all constants as enums, in orde
On Thursday, August 01, 2013 16:00:09 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/1/2013 3:28 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
> > What do people think we should do? Opinions please!
>
> Even supporting XP is problematic because of the badly broken thread local
> storage support for DLLs in it, which D heavily relies o
On 8/1/2013 10:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Regardless, the biggest gain by far will be being able to ditch support for XP
and require at least Vista. As bad as Vista was, it had some major
improvements to the Win32 API (like adding a proper condition variable).
As a practical matter, we do n
Am 01.08.2013 22:59, schrieb Stewart Gordon:
- Define a mixin template along the lines of __AW in newer versions of
MinGW, so that
version (Unicode) {
alias QwertW Qwert;
} else {
alias QwertA Qwert;
}
can become simply
mixin DECLARE_AW!("Qwert");
I wou
On 8/1/13 10:41 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/1/2013 10:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Regardless, the biggest gain by far will be being able to ditch support for XP
and require at least Vista. As bad as Vista was, it had some major
improvements to the Win32 API (like adding a proper condition v
On 2 August 2013 15:51, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 01.08.2013 22:59, schrieb Stewart Gordon:
>
> - Define a mixin template along the lines of __AW in newer versions of
>> MinGW, so that
>>
>> version (Unicode) {
>> alias QwertW Qwert;
>> } else {
>> alias QwertA Qwert;
On Friday, 2 August 2013 at 05:51:50 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I would seriously take into consideration to just drop the "A"
versions.
+1
or at least, the W version should be aliased by default.
On 8/1/2013 11:10 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
On 8/1/13 10:41 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/1/2013 10:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Regardless, the biggest gain by far will be being able to ditch support for XP
and require at least Vista. As bad as Vista was, it had some major
improvements to the
On Thursday, August 01, 2013 22:41:14 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/1/2013 10:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Regardless, the biggest gain by far will be being able to ditch support
> > for XP and require at least Vista. As bad as Vista was, it had some major
> > improvements to the Win32 API (lik
On 8/2/2013 12:50 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Well, if you want to do that, I'm not against it. I'd actually like to make
some changes to std.datetime which require Vista or later, so being able to
not bother with XP would be nice (though I've managed to work around the
problems caused by not hav
On Friday, August 02, 2013 01:27:11 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/2/2013 12:50 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Well, if you want to do that, I'm not against it. I'd actually like to
> > make
> > some changes to std.datetime which require Vista or later, so being able
> > to
> > not bother with XP wou
On 02/08/2013 09:47, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I'm not sure. Possibly. Given that we previously had code that checked the
version of Windows and used the A functions if it was running on Windows 9x,
there's probably a decent chance that something similar could be done with the
Vista vs pre-Vista t
On 02/08/2013 02:55, Mike Parker wrote:
- Define a mixin template along the lines of __AW in newer versions of MinGW,
so that
version (Unicode) {
alias QwertW Qwert;
} else {
alias QwertA Qwert;
}
can become simply
mixin DECLARE_AW!("Qwert");
I would be cau
On Friday, August 02, 2013 10:06:34 Stewart Gordon wrote:
> But that does suggest that good old C macros are considerably quicker to
> compile than mixins.
Strings get allocated and operated on when you're doing string mixins rather
than simply doing textual replacement like occurs with macros.
On Thursday, 1 August 2013 at 23:00:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/1/2013 3:28 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
What do people think we should do? Opinions please!
Even supporting XP is problematic because of the badly broken
thread local storage support for DLLs in it, which D heavily
relies o
On Friday, 2 August 2013 at 09:28:46 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
On Thursday, 1 August 2013 at 23:00:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/1/2013 3:28 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
What do people think we should do? Opinions please!
Even supporting XP is problematic because of the badly broken
thread l
02-Aug-2013 09:51, Sönke Ludwig пишет:
Am 01.08.2013 22:59, schrieb Stewart Gordon:
- Define a mixin template along the lines of __AW in newer versions of
MinGW, so that
version (Unicode) {
alias QwertW Qwert;
} else {
alias QwertA Qwert;
}
can become simply
On Friday, 2 August 2013 at 09:28:46 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
Windows XP user-base is still very big. I would vote against
ditching the XP support.
Me too. I guess I'd be ok with it being "supported" rather than
/supported/, but XP is still a *lot* of users and can't be
completely ignored.
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:ktfgps$2ghh$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 8/1/2013 10:17 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> Regardless, the biggest gain by far will be being able to ditch support
>> for XP
>> and require at least Vista. As bad as Vista was, it had some major
>> improvements to
On 8/2/2013 1:53 AM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 02/08/2013 09:47, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I'm not sure. Possibly. Given that we previously had code that checked the
version of Windows and used the A functions if it was running on Windows 9x,
there's probably a decent chance that something similar
On Friday, 2 August 2013 at 14:26:12 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
It would be rather silly to stop officially supporting the
second most
popular desktop operating system.
Well, it is no longer supported by Microsoft itself, isn't it?
There is a difference between formally supporting and spendin
On 8/2/2013 2:28 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
All I am trying to say is - XP is not dead, yet...
Is it feeling much better?
On 8/2/2013 6:41 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 2 August 2013 at 09:28:46 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
Windows XP user-base is still very big. I would vote against ditching the XP
support.
Me too. I guess I'd be ok with it being "supported" rather than /supported/, but
XP is still a *lot* of u
On Friday, 2 August 2013 at 19:05:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I'm not suggesting breaking support for XP. Just unofficial
support, meaning we won't break it, and we'll accept pull
requests to fix issues with it.
Just to be sure that I understand correctly what this thread is
about: Are you
On 8/2/2013 3:25 PM, Hans Mustermann wrote:
On Friday, 2 August 2013 at 19:05:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I'm not suggesting breaking support for XP. Just unofficial support, meaning
we won't break it, and we'll accept pull requests to fix issues with it.
Just to be sure that I understand co
"Hans Mustermann" wrote in message
news:ntjgrchqcyedtkjed...@forum.dlang.org...
> On Friday, 2 August 2013 at 19:05:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> I'm not suggesting breaking support for XP. Just unofficial support,
>> meaning we won't break it, and we'll accept pull requests to fix issues
>
On Friday, 2 August 2013 at 08:47:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Is it possible to test at runtime if those newer functions are
available,
use them if so, and a workaround if not?
I'm not sure. Possibly. Given that we previously had code that
checked the
version of Windows and used the A fun
34 matches
Mail list logo
