On 2014-01-09 00:16, H. S. Teoh wrote:
offtopic rant
A *shell script* could do better than make, by actually making
sure that everything is recompiled and up-to-date
I use a shell script for most of my projects. It's usually a one line
shell script, just to not have to retype all flags every
I made a post about it a few months back and it seemed like there
were some people who would want this, but nothing ever came of it.
The idea is basically being able to call and capture the output
of a program at compile time, similar to a string import.
Has anyone thought about this since?
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 18:46:37 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
I made a post about it a few months back and it seemed like
there were some people who would want this, but nothing ever
came of it.
The idea is basically being able to call and capture the output
of a program at compile time,
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 18:50:04 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 18:46:37 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
I made a post about it a few months back and it seemed like
there were some people who would want this, but nothing ever
came of it.
The idea is basically being
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 06:56:26PM +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 18:50:04 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 18:46:37 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
I made a post about it a few months back and it seemed like
there were some people who would want this,
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 20:34:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 06:56:26PM +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 18:50:04 UTC, Orvid King wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 18:46:37 UTC, Tofu Ninja
wrote:
I made a post about it a few months back
Just make your makefile run the script, pipe its output to a
file, and do a string import of the generated file.
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 22:01:56 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
Just make your makefile run the script, pipe its output to a
file, and do a string import of the generated file.
The kind of stuff I want to use it for would make that tactic
tedious and error prone. I would use it like how
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:29:03PM +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 22:01:56 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
Just make your makefile run the script, pipe its output to a file,
and do a string import of the generated file.
The kind of stuff I want to use it for would make
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 23:17:48 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:29:03PM +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 at 22:01:56 UTC, Brian Schott
wrote:
Just make your makefile run the script, pipe its output to a
file,
and do a string import of the
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:55:38PM +, Tofu Ninja wrote:
[...]
I didn't just mean keeping it in sync with the source files, but in
sync with every instance of the external exe call that might happen,
and since I would want to use it like how ctfe is used that
basically means any time I
On 2013-07-18 00:15, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Wow. That sounds like it's still a long ways off. But at least we're
making progress.
Oh, forgot to mention. There are several other people here that are
working on implementing a D front end. These are mostly lexers. There's
one in the review queue,
On 2013-07-16 06:10, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I think the right direction here is to factor compiler parts as a
library.
Yes, I agree. I've been wanting this for a long time.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:34:32AM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-07-16 06:10, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I think the right direction here is to factor compiler parts as a
library.
Yes, I agree. I've been wanting this for a long time.
[...]
We've been talking about this for a while.
On 2013-07-17 16:55, H. S. Teoh wrote:
We've been talking about this for a while. Have we made any progress in
this direction since?
There's been a bunch of pull requests merged related to adopting the DMD
source code to make it work with the tool, I think it was, Daniel Murphy
has created.
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 05:40:03PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-07-17 16:55, H. S. Teoh wrote:
We've been talking about this for a while. Have we made any progress
in this direction since?
There's been a bunch of pull requests merged related to adopting the
DMD source code to make
So if some one were to implement this, any ideas on the preferred
syntax for such a feature?
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
On 7/15/13 6:26 AM, Don wrote:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 20:42:50 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the ability to
call an executable at compile time and
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 20:42:50 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the
ability to call an executable at compile time and capture its
output. Something like the string imports but instead of
opening and reading a text file, it run an executable,
On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 13:26:13 UTC, Don wrote:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 20:42:50 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the
ability to call an executable at compile time and capture its
output. Something like the string imports but instead of
a feature that is
easy to misuse then it WILL be misused. Just looks at macros in C.
Any program that uses compile time executable calling will almost
certainly become non-portable. This is not a good thing.
On 07/13/2013 09:05 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
What would actually be cool is to run any kind of code at compile time
(within a sandbox, if you want). For example reading a mysql database
and generating classes for the tables at compile time. No need to run a
separate executable and remember
On 7/15/13 2:03 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 07/13/2013 09:05 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
What would actually be cool is to run any kind of code at compile time
(within a sandbox, if you want). For example reading a mysql database
and generating classes for the tables at compile time. No need
On 07/15/2013 08:05 AM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
We should be as flexible as possible and leave the decision up to the
programmer. We shouldn't restrict a feature based on a fictional idea of
purity or vague worry of feature bloat(as others have mentioned)
My worry is not vague at all. What stops
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 02:06:47PM -0300, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 7/15/13 2:03 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 07/13/2013 09:05 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
What would actually be cool is to run any kind of code at compile
time (within a sandbox, if you want). For example reading a mysql
On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 17:08:48 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 07/15/2013 08:05 AM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
We should be as flexible as possible and leave the decision
up to the
programmer. We shouldn't restrict a feature based on a
fictional idea of
purity or vague worry of feature bloat(as
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 07:35:44PM +0200, Tofu Ninja wrote:
[...]
The use cases I am more interested in are not possible with make.
Having the ability to pass the arguments from within the language
itself allows you to define your use cases inline instead of having
to separately define the use
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Tofu Ninja emmo...@purdue.edu wrote:
On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 17:08:48 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 07/15/2013 08:05 AM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
We should be as flexible as possible and leave the decision
up to the
programmer. We shouldn't restrict a feature
On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 17:49:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 07:35:44PM +0200, Tofu Ninja wrote:
[...]
The use cases I am more interested in are not possible with
make.
Having the ability to pass the arguments from within the
language
itself allows you to define your use
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 07:54:56PM +0200, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 17:49:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 07:35:44PM +0200, Tofu Ninja wrote:
[...]
The use cases I am more interested in are not possible with make.
Having the ability to pass the arguments
On 7/15/13 6:26 AM, Don wrote:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 20:42:50 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the ability to
call an executable at compile time and capture its output. Something
like the string imports but instead of opening and reading a text
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 21:54:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/12/2013 1:42 PM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the
ability to call an
executable at compile time and capture its output. Something
like the string
imports but instead of opening and
On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 at 04:10:35 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I think the right direction here is to factor compiler parts as
a library. Then user code may insert external artifacts
(notably REPL) on its own.
Andrei
SDC is already based on that principle, but still far from
release
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.comwrote:
On 7/12/2013 5:00 PM, Timothee Cour wrote:
Let's put it another way: if I or someone else made a pull request for
CTFE
exec, would it have a chance of being accepted?
A big problem with it would be the
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Ary Borenszweig a...@esperanto.org.arwrote:
On 7/12/13 5:42 PM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the ability to
call an executable at compile time and capture its output. Something
like the string imports but instead of
On Saturday, 13 July 2013 at 04:23:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
A big problem with it would be the equivalent of the SQL
Injection Exploit. Since the compiler can now execute
arbitrary code, someone passing around malicious source code
could do anything to your system.
Assuming that the
On 7/12/2013 11:52 PM, BLM768 wrote:
On Saturday, 13 July 2013 at 04:23:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
A big problem with it would be the equivalent of the SQL Injection Exploit.
Since the compiler can now execute arbitrary code, someone passing around
malicious source code could do anything to
Am 13.07.2013 01:43, schrieb H. S. Teoh:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:35:30PM -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/12/2013 3:12 PM, Timothee Cour wrote:
I think the OP was refering to something different: ability to call
an arbitrary executable / shell command during compile time of a D
function,
On Saturday, 13 July 2013 at 07:13:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/12/2013 11:52 PM, BLM768 wrote:
On Saturday, 13 July 2013 at 04:23:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
A big problem with it would be the equivalent of the SQL
Injection Exploit.
Since the compiler can now execute arbitrary code,
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 23:34:05 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
regarding added complexity: the only thing this adds is 1
function (calling
an executable, with option to redirect stdin/out/err). And yes,
that could
read mail as you joked if the user called such a program inside
his D
function,
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 22:46:39 UTC, Justin Whear wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 00:36:21 +0200, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 20:42:50 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the
ability to
call an executable at compile time and
On Saturday, 13 July 2013 at 11:19:49 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
A few minutes ago, I have a same issue. I need add some enum
values as a compile option.
Now I have something like this:
version (Parser) {
enum Application = parser;
}
version (Report) {
enum Application = report;
W dniu 13.07.2013 09:13, Walter Bright pisze:
On 7/12/2013 11:52 PM, BLM768 wrote:
On Saturday, 13 July 2013 at 04:23:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
A big problem with it would be the equivalent of the SQL Injection
Exploit.
Since the compiler can now execute arbitrary code, someone passing
On 7/12/13 5:42 PM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the ability to
call an executable at compile time and capture its output. Something
like the string imports but instead of opening and reading a text file,
it run an executable, waits for it to finish,
On 7/13/2013 1:34 AM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
Any idea how difficult such a thing would be to implement? Any one willing to
work on something like this? If something like this was made, would it be
included?
It would be easy to implement. I don't know if it should be included or not,
though.
On Saturday, 13 July 2013 at 11:25:05 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Saturday, 13 July 2013 at 11:19:49 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
A few minutes ago, I have a same issue. I need add some enum
values as a compile option.
Now I have something like this:
version (Parser) {
enum Application
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the
ability to call an executable at compile time and capture its
output. Something like the string imports but instead of opening
and reading a text file, it run an executable, waits for it to
finish, and grabs its output.
It would get
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Tofu Ninja emmo...@purdue.edu wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the ability to call
an executable at compile time and capture its output. Something like the
string imports but instead of opening and reading a text file, it run an
On 7/12/2013 1:42 PM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the ability to call an
executable at compile time and capture its output. Something like the string
imports but instead of opening and reading a text file, it run an executable,
waits for it to finish,
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.comwrote:
On 7/12/2013 1:42 PM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the ability to
call an
executable at compile time and capture its output. Something like the
string
imports but
On 7/12/2013 3:12 PM, Timothee Cour wrote:
I think the OP was refering to something different:
ability to call an arbitrary executable / shell command during compile time of a
D function, whereas optabgen is during compiling dmd itself:
It's still the same idea - using external programs to
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 20:42:50 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the
ability to call an executable at compile time and capture its
output.
How long until D compilers are able to read mail? :-)
There's many obvious applications of this proposed
On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 00:36:21 +0200, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 20:42:50 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the ability to
call an executable at compile time and capture its output.
How long until D compilers are able to read
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 22:36:22 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 20:42:50 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the
ability to call an executable at compile time and capture its
output.
How long until D compilers are able to
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Peter Alexander
peter.alexander...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 20:42:50 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the ability to
call an executable at compile time and capture its output.
How long until D
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:35:30PM -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/12/2013 3:12 PM, Timothee Cour wrote:
I think the OP was refering to something different: ability to call
an arbitrary executable / shell command during compile time of a D
function, whereas optabgen is during compiling dmd
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:51:03AM +0200, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 22:36:22 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 20:42:50 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the
ability to call an executable at compile time and
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:51 PM, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:51:03AM +0200, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 22:36:22 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 20:42:50 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So I had an idea recently,
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 05:00:29PM -0700, Timothee Cour wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:51 PM, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:51:03AM +0200, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 22:36:22 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Friday, 12 July 2013 at
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 05:00:29PM -0700, Timothee Cour wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:51 PM, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
wrote:
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:51:03AM +0200, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Friday, 12
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 05:39:45PM -0700, Timothee Cour wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 05:00:29PM -0700, Timothee Cour wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:51 PM, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
wrote:
On Sat,
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 6:14 PM, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 05:39:45PM -0700, Timothee Cour wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 05:00:29PM -0700, Timothee Cour wrote:
On Fri,
On 7/12/2013 5:00 PM, Timothee Cour wrote:
Let's put it another way: if I or someone else made a pull request for CTFE
exec, would it have a chance of being accepted?
A big problem with it would be the equivalent of the SQL Injection Exploit.
Since the compiler can now execute arbitrary code,
63 matches
Mail list logo
