www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Execution order of static ...

reply ptkacz cogeco.ca writes:
I don't know if this has been discussed, but will bring it up.  Reading the D
specification, I have read that static constructors (and initialization of
variables) are executed (or initialized) prior to the execution of main in no
particular order.

How about modifying the "static" specifier to allow for execution order in the
following manner:

static(int order) ...

1) "static" without any parameters would be treated as normal.
2) a parameter specified would be an integer value (negative, zero, or
positive).
3) "static specifiers with a specified parameter would be executed first,
followed by "static" specifiers with no parameter, followed by the execution of
main.
4) the integer parameter to a "static" specifier would indicate execution order.
Excution would start with the "static" specifier having the smallest value,
followed by the next "static" spcifier having the next larger value.
5) "static" specifiers with the same order parameter would be executed in what
ever order they come.

So for example,

class Meow 
{
static(5) this() {....}
}

class Bark
{
static(1) this() {...}
}

class Hoot
{
static this() {...}
}


Execution order would then be: Bark.this(), Meow.this(), Hoot.this()...
main()...


Peter

P.S. If I've not made sense, it's it's because I've been looking too hard at the
computer screen at work all day.
Aug 31 2004
parent reply "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
The static initialization does have an order. First, all imports are
constructed first. Then the static initializers are executed in the lexical
order in which they appear in the module.
Aug 31 2004
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <ch302m$1b80$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
The static initialization does have an order. First, all imports are
constructed first. Then the static initializers are executed in the lexical
order in which they appear in the module.

Not to hijack the thread, but is it reasonable to assume that unit tests are ordered the same way? Sean
Aug 31 2004
parent "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
"Sean Kelly" <sean f4.ca> wrote in message
news:ch3153$1bng$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <ch302m$1b80$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
The static initialization does have an order. First, all imports are
constructed first. Then the static initializers are executed in the


order in which they appear in the module.

Not to hijack the thread, but is it reasonable to assume that unit tests

 ordered the same way?

Yes.
Aug 31 2004