Eric Schulte <schulte.eric <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > Hi Eric > > > > That's awsome ! > > > > Yes, it would make sense, as D and C++ share a lot. > > There are differences, though: > > tables are translated as: > > string[][]; in D > > char*[]; in C++ > > includes are translated as: > > import std.stdio; in D > > #include <stdio> in C++ > > > > But yes, probably sharing a single ob-C.el file would save some maintenance > > effort. And by the way, ob-D.el was directly inspired by your ob-C.el. > > > > I'm open and willing to go further. > > Thierry > > > > Great, > > I think this incorporation into ob-C.el would be the next logical step. > You'd want to use the `org-babel-c-variant' in the same manner as C++ > does currently. But there's no rush, and any changes there couldn't be > merged until after your FSF copyright assignment forms have been > completed. > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Differences between D and C++ will introduce more (cond ((equal org-babel-c-variant ...)) constructs throughout the file. But that is the very purpose of org-babel-c-variant, isn'it ? One of the differences is that C or C++ requires two org-babel-eval -- one for the compiler, another for the executable -- whereas D requires only one. I will look at that while the copyright stuff is being done. Thanks, Eric (and Bastien and Thomas and Nick), for your warm welcome in the Org world. Thierry