LDC 1.4.0

[kinke via digitalmars-d-ldc]

On Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 08:07:38 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 07:17:04 UTC, Arun 
> Chandrasekaran wrote:
>> Why is the executable named `ldc2` on Linux? If it's for 
>> historical reasons, why not just drop it and use just `ldc`?

Because we can't simply change it and thus break integration with 
build tools.

> I agree, it was probably done to differentiate with D 1.0 back 
> in the day, but enough time has passed since D 1.0's demise 
> that we can probably just switch, while keeping a ldc2 symbolic 
> link or wrapper so as not to break any code.

Yep that is/was the reason. Symbolic file links on Windows are 
very uncommon, as they require an NTFS file system and Vista or 
newer.