On 2011-06-18 22:02, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/18/2011 02:35 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I'd probably consider something more like:
orb.ver = "1.0.0";
orb.author = "Jacob Carlborg";
orb.type = Type.library;
orb.imports = ["a.d", "b.di"]; // an array of import files
And yes, I think these would be better simply because they're in D.
The user
doesn't have to switch languages.
Just to add an opinion - I think doing this work in D would foster
creative uses of the language and be beneficial for improving the
language itself and its standard library.
Andrei
Fair point. But I'm using the tools I think are best fitted for the job.
If I don't think D is good enough for the job I won't use it. If it it
shows that D is good enough I can use D instead. Note that the whole
tool is written in D, it's just that config/spec files that uses Ruby.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
