That's the problem - no working build tool exists for D. Why don't you like the idea of integrating build information in source code? I mean, that information does not change for a given source file.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote: > On 2011-10-26 12:26, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote: >> >> I had a few thoughts about integrating build awareness into DMD. >> It would be really cool to add a flag to DMD to make it compile and >> link in all import-referenced modules. >> Also, it would be awesome to store basic build information in modules >> themselves in the form of special comments (much like documentation >> comments), where one could specify external build dependencies, output >> type, etc. >> There would be no need for makefiles and extra build systems. You'd >> just feed an arbitrary module to the compiler and the compiler would >> build the target, to which that module belongs (bu parsing build >> comments and package hierarchies). >> Wouldn't this be a good thing to have? > > Sounds horrible to have a build script in comments in the source code. I > think the right approach is to have a separate build tool, with a proper DSL > built on an existing language, e.g. Ruby, D, something else. > > There are already a couple of build tools available: > > DSSS - D1 only, not maintained any more > xfbuild - Probably not maintained any more. No build script > rdmd - Cannot build libraries, no build script, cannot do much besides from > building executables > > I've been working on a build tool, https://bitbucket.org/doob/dake . I've > started rewriting the tool in D, been a while since I worked on it. > Currently it's not a prioritized project for me. > > I also know others are working on built tools for D. > > -- > /Jacob Carlborg >