[dmd-beta] 64 bit beta for Linux

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Doesn't version(StdDdoc) take care of this as discussed?

Sent by shouting through my showerhead.

On Feb 10, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>  
wrote:

> On Sunday, February 06, 2011 19:41:13 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 2/6/11 9:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> On Sunday 06 February 2011 18:05:27 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> Again, all we need to do is use a different macro than the  
>>>> default one.
>>>> In hindsight, using D_Ddoc is a mistake as the user does not want  
>>>> to
>>>> generate docs for Phobos but she does want to import stuff from it.
>>>
>>> So, essentially we decide to treat druntime and Phobos differently  
>>> with
>>> regards to documentation by using a different macro on the  
>>> assumption
>>> that no one wants to build their ddoc documentation normally?
>>
>> That would be the case for any library. Say A writes a library Deimos
>> and B uses it and wants to generate documentation for their own  
>> project.
>> Would they expect to generate docs for Deimos along the way?
>>
>>> I'm not sure how this really solves the problem. Anyone who is  
>>> building
>>> their own code with version(D_Ddoc) blocks will find the problem
>>> relatively quickly but they at least will then know how to fix it  
>>> (don't
>>> build your code with -D and generate your documentation  
>>> separately). For
>>> projects that _don't_ have that problem but use druntime and Phobos,
>>> wouldn't they either just use prebuilt libraries for them or use
>>> druntime and Phobos' makefiles when building them, at which point
>>> whether they use -D on their project or not has nothing to do with
>>> druntime or Phobos.
>>
>> Currently Phobos imports are distributed in full. So we need to  
>> figure
>> out a way to not mess up their -D with ours. In fact we don't need to
>> figure out anything - let's just defined and use our own version
>> PhobosDoc or whatnot.
>
> If we're going to do this, we should look at doing it soon. At  
> minimum, both
> std.datetime and std.file are affected by this issue. I believe that  
> core.time is
> as well, so we should probably do something similar with druntime.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta