H. S. Teoh wrote:
If this was code generated by an external utility
I wasn't argumenting for using external utilities, but against the
argument, that separating code for separatable phases would obfuscate
the code.
for more than one _needed_ phase
compile-time validation of generated code
On 02/03/2012 04:26 AM, Manfred Nowak wrote:
H. S. Teoh wrote:
I don't think that should be grounds to get rid of CTFE,
though.
In contrast to your remark, I do not see the benefits of reducing two
compiling phases to one. For me CTFE ist nothing else than running the
executables of a first
On 02/03/2012 12:22 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I'm experimenting with pluggable expression parser modules, and I'm
wondering if I can use CTFE to build parser tables and such. What are
the current limitations of CTFE? Are dynamic arrays of structs
supported? Associative arrays? What about
On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 01:54:55AM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
[...]
On another level, how far are we expecting CTFE to go eventually? In
my mind, the ideal situation would be that CTFE can replace writing
an arbitrarily complex helper program that generates D code (either
functions or data,
Timon Gehr wrote:
You probably haven't made extensive use of the feature.
That is correct.
- needed for a third compilation, needed for a fourth compilation,
needed for a fifth compilation ...
Provide an example please and I will change my opinion.
- better syntax, can do complex things
On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 02:36:10AM +, Manfred Nowak wrote:
[...]
- better syntax, can do complex things without obfuscating the
code
If the codes for more than one _needed_ phase are tangled into one
code base, I call that an obfuscated base.
[...]
One major advantage of CTFE that is
I'm experimenting with pluggable expression parser modules, and I'm
wondering if I can use CTFE to build parser tables and such. What are
the current limitations of CTFE? Are dynamic arrays of structs
supported? Associative arrays? What about compile-time cross-module
initialization?
The idea is
H. S. Teoh wrote:
the ideal situation would be that CTFE can replace writing an
arbitrarily complex helper program
Aebitrary complex helper programs may include viruses and other nice
surprises. Walter does not want that adminstrators have to worry about
a compilation step to torture the
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:51:51AM +, Manfred Nowak wrote:
H. S. Teoh wrote:
the ideal situation would be that CTFE can replace writing an
arbitrarily complex helper program
Aebitrary complex helper programs may include viruses and other nice
surprises. Walter does not want that
H. S. Teoh wrote:
I don't think that should be grounds to get rid of CTFE,
though.
In contrast to your remark, I do not see the benefits of reducing two
compiling phases to one. For me CTFE ist nothing else than running the
executables of a first compilation in order to get some values
10 matches
Mail list logo