ruben niemann Wrote:
> 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.
Indeed. The many feces of d doesnt include sop " script oriented prog...
