Rainer Deyke wrote:
What makes this case particularly bad is that Walter deliberate chose to
limit the power of the 'version' construct in order to prevent overly
complex read-only code.
Actually, AIUI it's just one of many things he did to eliminate the
syntactic fragility that C++ has a lot
Rainer Deyke Wrote:
> - However, the language has other features that can be abused to
> provide the functionality in a syntactically ugly way.
> - D programmers use these language features to write powerful but ugly
> code.
There was a word that macros are not needed because string mixins ar
Phil Deets wrote:
> mixin(q"ENUM
> enum Tag
> {
>A, B,
> ENUM"~(Version!("symbol")?q"ENUM
>C, D,
> ENUM":"")~q"ENUM
>E,
> }
> ENUM");
>
> That's not pretty, but it's good enough for me; so I'll probably not do
> any compiler hacking.
"Not pretty" is putting it very lightly.
What's ha
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:32:56 -0500, Phil Deets wrote:
enum Tag
{
A, B, C,
version (5) {
D, E,
}
version (7) {
F, G,
}
// ...
}
Thanks to Daniel Keep on the learn newsgroup, I got a workaround working.
template Version(string symbol) {
mixin("version(
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:26:39 -0500, Ellery Newcomer
wrote:
Phil Deets wrote:
I put the comma inside the version block because then there wouldn't be
duplicate commas if the version was removed. If the version number was 6
in the above example, it would evaluate to "A, B, C, D, E," with my w
Phil Deets wrote:
>
> I put the comma inside the version block because then there wouldn't be
> duplicate commas if the version was removed. If the version number was 6
> in the above example, it would evaluate to "A, B, C, D, E," with my way,
> but
>
> enum Tag
> {
>A, B, C,
>version (5)
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:16:13 -0500, Stewart Gordon
wrote:
Phil Deets wrote:
I would definitely like the following code to work.
enum Tag
{
A, B, C,
version (5) {
D, E,
}
version (7) {
F, G,
}
// ...
}
So would I, except that it makes more sense to me to have
Phil Deets wrote:
Hello, I looked over the language specification, and I could not
find any statement which says where version conditions are
permitted.
Language syntax is generally left to the BNF blocks dotted around the
documentation.
I assumed that they would be permitted most places th
Hello Phil,
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:47:50 -0500, Ellery Newcomer
wrote:
And the subject has been brought up before (probably more than once).
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Conditional_compi
lation_inside_asm_and_enum_declarations_93200.html
Oops, didn't mean to repeat
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:47:50 -0500, Ellery Newcomer
wrote:
And the subject has been brought up before (probably more than once).
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Conditional_compilation_inside_asm_and_enum_declarations_93200.html
Oops, didn't mean to repeat past discuss
Phil Deets wrote:
> Hello, I looked over the language specification, and I could not find
> any statement which says where version conditions are permitted. I
> assumed that they would be permitted most places that #if would be
> reasonable in C, but evidently that is not true as they do not work
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
