www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - printf?

reply dr_dizel hotbox.ru writes:
It's a Java way:

SimpleDateFormat formatter
= new SimpleDateFormat ("yyyy.MM.dd G 'at' hh:mm:ss a zzz");
Date currentTime_1 = new Date();
String dateString = formatter.format(currentTime_1);

Huh? =) OOP & here is no one "printf..."

// Dizel
Sep 28 2002
parent reply "Mike Wynn" <mike.wynn l8night.co.uk> writes:
and how much code do you need to write to perform a simple
prinf( "this number 0x%X, as dec(%d) with a string '%s' or two %s%s, and a
float %g, i,i,str1,str2,str1,f );

I would like to see an extended object array type that allows runtime type
checking or both objects and primitives
which could be used for a D varargs
without the Java problem of having to create a Integer, Long Object to wrap
the primatives passed in the array.

a good D svprintf would be a bonus too (that understood the buffer was a D
char/wchar[] and could grow it for you).

Mike.

<dr_dizel hotbox.ru> wrote in message
news:an4qf6$2bio$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 It's a Java way:

 SimpleDateFormat formatter
 = new SimpleDateFormat ("yyyy.MM.dd G 'at' hh:mm:ss a zzz");
 Date currentTime_1 = new Date();
 String dateString = formatter.format(currentTime_1);

 Huh? =) OOP & here is no one "printf..."

 // Dizel
Sep 28 2002
parent reply Burton Radons <loth users.sourceforge.net> writes:
Mike Wynn wrote:

 and how much code do you need to write to perform a simple
 prinf( "this number 0x%X, as dec(%d) with a string '%s' or two %s%s, and a
 float %g, i,i,str1,str2,str1,f );
 
 I would like to see an extended object array type that allows runtime type
 checking or both objects and primitives
 which could be used for a D varargs
 without the Java problem of having to create a Integer, Long Object to wrap
 the primatives passed in the array.


My port has safe varargs using a generic list:

    void print (char [] format, generic [] args...);

The generic struct holds a pointer and a TypeInfo.  I use it for 
printing, as with the above.  Go bug Walter about it, as he seems to 
think formatted printing isn't the most important library task in a wide 
range of applications and worth the fifty lines of code this took.  :-)

This also gets rid of the va_list issue with two functions for every 
varargs function as you can expand generic lists into another.  Example:

     void foobar (generic [] args...)
     {
         print ("%s:%d\n", args [1 .. ]...);
     }

And, of course, it fixes the issue of having to have at least one real 
argument.


 a good D svprintf would be a bonus too (that understood the buffer was a D
 char/wchar[] and could grow it for you).


It's just fmt in my port:

    char [] fmt (char [] format, generic [] args...);

    char [] str = fmt ("%s", 45);

So it's similar to Python in that you can pass anything through %s.
Sep 28 2002
next sibling parent "Mike Wynn" <mike.wynn l8night.co.uk> writes:
 My port has safe varargs using a generic list:

     void print (char [] format, generic [] args...);

 It's just fmt in my port:


by 'Port' have you modified the D front end ? is so is this public and
usable on Win32 systems ?
Sep 28 2002
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "anderson" <anderson firestar.com.au> writes:
It seems that you've made some changes from the D standard in your port.
Does Walter plan on supporting these things in the future?  Are these things
temporal (likely to change)? What will happen if Walter takes a different
approach and some of these things become obsolete?

Not saying what you have done is good or bad, I'm just asking some critical
questions about your port.

PS -
Keep up the excellent work on the port.

"Burton Radons" <loth users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:an52bu$2jb3$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Mike Wynn wrote:

 and how much code do you need to write to perform a simple
 prinf( "this number 0x%X, as dec(%d) with a string '%s' or two %s%s, and




a

 float %g, i,i,str1,str2,str1,f );

 I would like to see an extended object array type that allows runtime




type

 checking or both objects and primitives
 which could be used for a D varargs
 without the Java problem of having to create a Integer, Long Object to




wrap

 the primatives passed in the array.


 My port has safe varargs using a generic list:

     void print (char [] format, generic [] args...);

 The generic struct holds a pointer and a TypeInfo.  I use it for
 printing, as with the above.  Go bug Walter about it, as he seems to
 think formatted printing isn't the most important library task in a wide
 range of applications and worth the fifty lines of code this took.  :-)

 This also gets rid of the va_list issue with two functions for every
 varargs function as you can expand generic lists into another.  Example:

      void foobar (generic [] args...)
      {
          print ("%s:%d\n", args [1 .. ]...);
      }

 And, of course, it fixes the issue of having to have at least one real
 argument.


 a good D svprintf would be a bonus too (that understood the buffer was a




D

 char/wchar[] and could grow it for you).


 It's just fmt in my port:

     char [] fmt (char [] format, generic [] args...);

     char [] str = fmt ("%s", 45);

 So it's similar to Python in that you can pass anything through %s.
Sep 29 2002
parent reply Burton Radons <loth users.sourceforge.net> writes:
anderson wrote:

 It seems that you've made some changes from the D standard in your port.
 Does Walter plan on supporting these things in the future?  Are these things
 temporal (likely to change)? What will happen if Walter takes a different
 approach and some of these things become obsolete?


Default arguments for array slicing will get in DMD; if they're not on 
Walter's TODO, they must be put there.

Safe varargs, as I say, require some convincing.  The alternatives are 
compile-time argument expansion and iostream.  He's publicly opposed 
iostream (to the point of wanting to restrict the operator overloading 
to disallow it, if you remember) - although it flat out will get into D 
if the only alternative is C's broken method - and I doubt he's much for 
compile-time argument expansion (Either the Russ method or the 
overloaded recursive method), as it's not a simple thing to do in the 
compiler, even with inlining there.

I'm convinced my solution is the absolute ideal for the generic list 
method - it does everything using the minimum of fuss and fits like the 
language had been built for it.  Choosing an inferior, and incompatible, 
method instead would be very strange seeing as it's so easy to 
implement; fifty lines isn't really any more complex than twenty or ten. 
  The only variation could be in the keyword and the supported methods.

There's no chance of obsoletion, as the generic list method does everything.
Sep 29 2002
parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
I'm not ignoring this issue, you're right, it does need addressing. It's
just that I've got a pile of things to do to D. You're right about my
dislike of C++ iostreams. The nail in its coffin is the poor performance on
benchmarks. Iostreams has bloat, inefficiency, complexity, and is
aesthetically unappealing. The only thing it does right is flexibility, but
at too high a cost.

Java is worse, its I/O speed is a serious problem.

Paying a lot of attention to I/O routines is a crucial component of the
speed of the Digital Mars compilers/linkers.
Oct 01 2002
prev sibling parent Mark Evans <Mark_member pathlink.com> writes:
  Go bug Walter about it, as he seems to 
think formatted printing isn't the most important library task


Walter consider yourself bugged, 
Mark
Sep 29 2002