• Laeeth Isharc (16/16) Mar 17 2015 So I ported the C API for MathGL to D, and it is up at
• Laeeth Isharc (2/18) Mar 17 2015
• Daniel Murphy (8/16) Mar 17 2015 You should just declare them with the actual argument types. From a qui...
• Laeeth Isharc (5/29) Mar 17 2015 Thanks. I should have double checked but trusted dstep which
• Jacob Carlborg (5/8) Mar 18 2015 Please report any issues with DStep to [1].
• Laeeth Isharc (2/8) Mar 18 2015 Was just about to ;)

"Laeeth Isharc" <nospamlaeeth nospam.laeeth.com> writes:

So I ported the C API for MathGL to D, and it is up at 
code.dlang.org (under dmathgl).  MathGL is a nice plotting 
library.

http://mathgl.sourceforge.net/doc_en/Pictures.html#Pictures

Later I will work on porting the C++ interface, but so far it at 
least works for the simplest sample.  (Not tried anything else as 
they are all written in C++).

DMD gave me an error message for the following declarations:

double mgl_rnd (...);
double mgl_rnd_ (...);

It says I need at least one fixed argument first.  But the C 
headers are as they are.

I could work around this by writing a C stub

double mgl_rnd_(int dummy, ...)

but is there any way to call these functions without this 
workaround?

"Laeeth Isharc" <nospamlaeeth nospam.laeeth.com> writes:

sorry - posted in wrong forum

On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 at 00:54:07 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
 So I ported the C API for MathGL to D, and it is up at 
 code.dlang.org (under dmathgl).  MathGL is a nice plotting 
 library.

 http://mathgl.sourceforge.net/doc_en/Pictures.html#Pictures

 Later I will work on porting the C++ interface, but so far it 
 at least works for the simplest sample.  (Not tried anything 
 else as they are all written in C++).

 DMD gave me an error message for the following declarations:

 double mgl_rnd (...);
 double mgl_rnd_ (...);

 It says I need at least one fixed argument first.  But the C 
 headers are as they are.

 I could work around this by writing a C stub

 double mgl_rnd_(int dummy, ...)

 but is there any way to call these functions without this 
 workaround?

"Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> writes:

"Laeeth Isharc"  wrote in message 
news:jmlgralvzaqperfkntqw forum.dlang.org...

 DMD gave me an error message for the following declarations:

 double mgl_rnd (...);
 double mgl_rnd_ (...);

 It says I need at least one fixed argument first.  But the C headers are 
 as they are.

 I could work around this by writing a C stub

 double mgl_rnd_(int dummy, ...)

 but is there any way to call these functions without this workaround?

You should just declare them with the actual argument types.  From a quick 
look at the documentation it seems like the correct signature would be
double mgl_rnd();

i.e. these functions aren't actually variadic they just haven't specified 
the signature.  Functions that take variadic arguments will pretty much 
always have at least one named argument. 

"Laeeth Isharc" <laeethnospam nospamlaeeth.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 at 03:14:30 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
 "Laeeth Isharc"  wrote in message 
 news:jmlgralvzaqperfkntqw forum.dlang.org...

 DMD gave me an error message for the following declarations:

 double mgl_rnd (...);
 double mgl_rnd_ (...);

 It says I need at least one fixed argument first.  But the C 
 headers are as they are.

 I could work around this by writing a C stub

 double mgl_rnd_(int dummy, ...)

 but is there any way to call these functions without this 
 workaround?

 You should just declare them with the actual argument types.  
 From a quick look at the documentation it seems like the 
 correct signature would be
 double mgl_rnd();

 i.e. these functions aren't actually variadic they just haven't 
 specified the signature.  Functions that take variadic 
 arguments will pretty much always have at least one named 
 argument.

Thanks.  I should have double checked but trusted dstep which
seems to have gotten confused by these ones.  Its a great time
saver generally though.


Laeeth

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2015-03-18 05:49, Laeeth Isharc wrote:

 Thanks.  I should have double checked but trusted dstep which
 seems to have gotten confused by these ones.  Its a great time
 saver generally though.

Please report any issues with DStep to [1].

[1] http://github.com/jacob-carlborg/dstep/issues

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

"Laeeth Isharc" <Laeeth.nospam nospam-laeeth.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 at 16:14:28 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 2015-03-18 05:49, Laeeth Isharc wrote:

 Thanks.  I should have double checked but trusted dstep which
 seems to have gotten confused by these ones.  Its a great time
 saver generally though.

 Please report any issues with DStep to [1].

 [1] http://github.com/jacob-carlborg/dstep/issues

Was just about to ;)