spir Wrote: > [started separate thread] > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:58:31 +0100 > Tomek SowiÅski <j...@ask.me> wrote: > > > Andrei Alexandrescu napisaÅ: > > > > >> Speaking of getopt, when writing the 'grep' snippet I missed anonymous > > >> options a lot: > > >> > > >> bool h, i; string expr; string[] files; > > >> getopt(args, "h",&h, "i",&i,&expr,&files); > > >> > > >> They can be implemented with relatively little effort. > > > > > > Not getting the example. How would anonymous options work? > > > > // Let's match assignments. > > auto args = ["program.exe", ".*=.*;", "file1.d", "file2.d", "file3.d"]; > > bool h, i; string expr; string[] files; > > getopt(args, "h",&h, "i",&i, &expr, &files); > > assert(!h); > > assert(!i); > > assert(expr == ".*=.*;"); > > assert(files == ["file1.d", "file2.d", "file3.d"]); > > assert(args == ["program.exe"]); > > > > Staying conservative, anonymous options would only be allowed at the end of > > the > > option list, because their order matters (unlike named options). Perhaps > > this can > > be relaxed with time. > > I thought once at a default interface between the command-line and a > program's startup routine, main(). The idea would be for main to have > parameters automagically fed from whatever the user provides. With a > command-line syntax inspired by named func call. It lets the program itself > be called more or less like a func, via program-level parameter definition: > > // program "findword" > int main (string filename, string word, bool verbose=false) {...} > > // use it > $ findword filename=foo.txt word=foo verbose=true > > Parameters having default value can indeed be omitted by the user. > Optionally, the first arg (often corresponding to the "object" on which a > command applies, like the receiver in OO, and thus usually "obvious") can be > automatically mapped to the first param of main: > > $ findword foo.txt word=foo > > This is, indeed, a language-specific feature. On the other hand, it brings to > the user consistent program-call format -- rather than each program defining > its own. Maybe after sometime the same syntax trick and syntax would adopted > by other languages. > I find this very coool on the programmer side as well. It must indeed by > implemented in the language('s runtime) itself. To have such a feature > without breaking any code, a possibility may be to use a different name than > "main", eg "script". > (I guess such a feature would make some difference in judging a language's > adequacy to scripting.) > > What do you think?
That's a nifty feature. I took a look at the scriptometer page. It looks like if more real scripting languages are coming there (one or two more), D will be out from the top-20. The script library and shortcuts are badly needed. D isn't (yet) even the best static compiled language in the test. At least two Java/JVM languages beat D and it doesn't yet even have the super tight Groovy. It's also still missing Clojure, Io, Factor, and those other "tight" languages. Looking bad without a dedicated library. The library might be good to contain features 'sed', 'grep', and fill the namespace with name globals. std.s sounds like a good name.