• g <g g.g> Jan 10 2010
• g <g g.g> Jan 10 2010
• Trass3r <un known.com> Jan 11 2010
• g <g g.g> Jan 11 2010
• grauzone <none example.net> Jan 11 2010
• Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> Jan 11 2010
• grauzone <none example.net> Jan 11 2010
• g <g g.g> Jan 12 2010

g <g g.g> writes:

Hi
Is there a way to demangle .mangleof strings at CTFE
or at least know the fully qualified name of a class or template instance.

g <g g.g> writes:

g Wrote:

 Hi
 Is there a way to demangle .mangleof strings at CTFE
 or at least know the fully qualified name of a class or template instance.


let's repeat : "Google is your friend!"
http://www.dsource.org/projects/ddl/browser/trunk/meta/demangle.d
but is severely outdated (dmd 0.166! btw im using dmd 2.039) so it will fail
with invariant,shared,__gshared,inout(the new),etc.

Is that the only alternative?

Trass3r <un known.com> writes:

What about std.demangle?

g <g g.g> writes:

Trass3r Wrote:

 What about std.demangle?

grauzone <none example.net> writes:

g wrote:
 Hi
 Is there a way to demangle .mangleof strings at CTFE
 or at least know the fully qualified name of a class or template instance.


If you have to use such dirty tricks, you probably should consider to 
turn back NOW for your own good. D always lures you into doing tricky 
template and CTFE stuff, and then you end up either in compiler bugs or 
other dead ends.

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

On 1/11/2010 11:20 PM, grauzone wrote:
 g wrote:
 Hi
 Is there a way to demangle .mangleof strings at CTFE
 or at least know the fully qualified name of a class or template
 instance.


 If you have to use such dirty tricks, you probably should consider to
 turn back NOW for your own good. D always lures you into doing tricky
 template and CTFE stuff, and then you end up either in compiler bugs or
 other dead ends.


And how do bugs get fixed?  Step one is finding them.. which typically involves
writing code that uses the features.  Secondarily, a good number of bugs have
been fixed over the last couple months, so re-exploring the area might well bear
good fruit.

Anyway, doom and gloom pronouncements like this aren't particularly helpful.

That said, demangling a symbol and using that inside compile time expressions
does sound like one good definition of hell, regardless of how well it works.

Later,
Brad

grauzone <none example.net> writes:

Brad Roberts wrote:
 On 1/11/2010 11:20 PM, grauzone wrote:
 g wrote:
 Hi
 Is there a way to demangle .mangleof strings at CTFE
 or at least know the fully qualified name of a class or template
 instance.


 turn back NOW for your own good. D always lures you into doing tricky
 template and CTFE stuff, and then you end up either in compiler bugs or
 other dead ends.


 And how do bugs get fixed?  Step one is finding them.. which typically involves
 writing code that uses the features.  Secondarily, a good number of bugs have
 been fixed over the last couple months, so re-exploring the area might well
bear
 good fruit.
 
 Anyway, doom and gloom pronouncements like this aren't particularly helpful.


Some types of bugs just never seem to disappear: when one specific bug 
got fixed, a regression occurs and you have a similar bug. (This 
happened with forward references in the current dmd release.)

Nothing wrong with a warning.

 That said, demangling a symbol and using that inside compile time expressions
 does sound like one good definition of hell, regardless of how well it works.


Exactly. The thing is just (and that I wanted to say in my previous 
post): you get easily fascinated by the possibilities, but then either 
the language or dmd hit an unexpected barrier and fail. Then you start 
hacks by throwing heaps of CTFE and mixins on the problem, or stuff like 
parsing .mangleof. I believe choosing a simpler solution instead 
(although it's boring in terms of hacking) is better.

 Later,
 Brad

g <g g.g> writes:

grauzone Wrote:

 Brad Roberts wrote:
 On 1/11/2010 11:20 PM, grauzone wrote:
 g wrote:
 Hi
 Is there a way to demangle .mangleof strings at CTFE
 or at least know the fully qualified name of a class or template
 instance.


 turn back NOW for your own good. D always lures you into doing tricky
 template and CTFE stuff, and then you end up either in compiler bugs or
 other dead ends.


 And how do bugs get fixed?  Step one is finding them.. which typically involves
 writing code that uses the features.  Secondarily, a good number of bugs have
 been fixed over the last couple months, so re-exploring the area might well
bear
 good fruit.
 
 Anyway, doom and gloom pronouncements like this aren't particularly helpful.


 Some types of bugs just never seem to disappear: when one specific bug 
 got fixed, a regression occurs and you have a similar bug. (This 
 happened with forward references in the current dmd release.)
 
 Nothing wrong with a warning.
 
 That said, demangling a symbol and using that inside compile time expressions
 does sound like one good definition of hell, regardless of how well it works.


 Exactly. The thing is just (and that I wanted to say in my previous 
 post): you get easily fascinated by the possibilities, but then either 
 the language or dmd hit an unexpected barrier and fail. Then you start 
 hacks by throwing heaps of CTFE and mixins on the problem, or stuff like 
 parsing .mangleof. I believe choosing a simpler solution instead 
 (although it's boring in terms of hacking) is better.
 
 Later,
 Brad




well, but is there a way to get by other means  the fully qualified name of a
class for use to a mixin
(is a project for automatic generation of lua bindings)