DMD 0.155 release

[Ingle Thomas]

In article <e3g3nc$213n$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, pragma says...
>
>In article <e3g20i$1udh$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Jarrett Billingsley says...
>>
>>"ElfQT" <dethjunk at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>>news:e3ftla$1nec$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
>>>> Newer windbg's don't seem to support codeview 4 debug info, which is
>>>> what dmd generates.
>>>
>>> What about Visual Studio 2003?
>>> I've tried it with my D code, and it seems to me that
>>> it knows everything windbg knows.
>>> I will look into this further... also with VS2005. I've just tried the
>>> debugger that's all.
>>
>>I've tried to debug external executables in VS2003, but it only seems to be 
>>able to attach to currently-running processes, making it useless for 
>>debugging most things (i.e. pretty much anything that's not a GUI app and 
>>which doesn't crash immediately).  Can you shed some light on this?
>>
>>Instead, I use VS6, in which you can just open an EXE file, and start 
>>debugging it. 
>>
>
>I'm only familiar with VS6* myself, but I vaguely recall that it has a
>properties panel for the current project, where you can set the EXE name to run
>when debugging.  After setting it, the IDE just hooks that program into the
>debugger when you start a debugging session.  Perhaps there's something similar
>in the more recent versions of visual studio for this.
>
>* - I really thing MS had it right with version 6.  Why they had to go and
>change it up and make it resource hog is beyond me.
>
>- EricAnderton at yahoo

I agree with you 100%. They broke visual studio. Why? .Net

Although I do have to admit vs 2005 is pretty nice if you have the horsepower to
run it.