DMD 1.036 and 2.020 releases

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.186.1224567134.3087.digitalmars-d-announce at puremagic.com...
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Walter Bright
> <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.1.036.zip
>>
>> The 2.0 version splits phobos into druntime and phobos libraries (thanks 
>> to
>> Sean Kelly). This will enable both Tango and Phobos to share a common 
>> core
>> library.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.2.020.zip
>>
>> There are a lot of structural changes that go along with this, so expect
>> some rough patches with this release. It may take a followup release to 
>> file
>> them down. There's also some renaming of imports and function names, as a
>> compromise with Tango names.
>
> Wao!  Missed this at first:
>
> class Foo
> {
>    ref int getref() {
>        return m_int;
>    }
> private:
>    int m_int = 23;
> }
>
> void main() {
>    auto foo = new Foo;
>
>    writefln(foo.getref);
>    foo.getref() = 7;
>    writefln(foo.getref);
> }
> //Outputs:
> //23
> //7
>
> It works!  This is maybe even bigger news than cure for TangoPhobia!
>
> But I think maybe more documentation is needed in the Ref returns
> section regarding how this affects opIndex.
>
> class Foo
> {
>    this() {
>        m_arr.length = 10;
>        foreach(i, ref a; m_arr) { a=i;}
>    }
>    int[] array() {
>        return m_arr;
>    }
>    ref int opIndex(size_t idx) {
>        return m_arr[idx];
>    }
>
> private:
>    int[] m_arr;
> }
>
> void main() {
>    auto foo = new Foo;
>    foo[3] = -99;
> //hello.d(44): Error: operator [] assignment overload with opIndex(i,
> value) illegal, use opIndexAssign(value, i)
> //hello.d(44): function hello.Foo.opIndex (uint idx) does not match
> parameter types (int,int)
> //hello.d(44): Error: expected 1 arguments, not 2
> }
>
> Apparently using opIndex with ref return is not allowed as a way to
> set an index.
> This works though:
>
>    *(&foo[3]) = -99;
>
> Is there a good reason why it shouldn't be possible to use opAssign as
> a replacement for opIndexAssign?

I think it should be a bug.  I believe Andrei fully intended to use it this 
way.

-Steve