www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - replace phobos makefile and tools makefile with D

reply "timotheecour" <timothee.cour2 gmail.com> writes:
Can we replace phobos' and tools' Makefile with D with following 
advantages:

* no more 3 distinct files (posix.mak,win32.mak,win64.mak), 
instead use version() to maximize code reuse.

* less verbosity / bugs / forward compatibility issues eg when a 
module is added/renamed: eg could take advantage of D's 
capabilities to iterate over modules / files instead of 
explicitly listing them, which is fragile.

The D file could actually use some modules in phobos, so long it 
doesn't use libphobos.a.

The other Makefiles (druntime and dmd) are of course trickier 
since it'd require boosstrapping.

In my experience writing D based makefiles is very easy, short 
and clean.
Mar 19 2013
parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 00:18:41 timotheecour wrote:

 Can we replace phobos' and tools' Makefile with D with following
 advantages:
 
 * no more 3 distinct files (posix.mak,win32.mak,win64.mak),
 instead use version() to maximize code reuse.
 
 * less verbosity / bugs / forward compatibility issues eg when a
 module is added/renamed: eg could take advantage of D's
 capabilities to iterate over modules / files instead of
 explicitly listing them, which is fragile.
 
 The D file could actually use some modules in phobos, so long it
 doesn't use libphobos.a.
 
 The other Makefiles (druntime and dmd) are of course trickier
 since it'd require boosstrapping.
 
 In my experience writing D based makefiles is very easy, short
 and clean.


Even this were deemed a good idea, d-learn is not the correct list to discuss 
this on.

- Jonathan M Davis
Mar 19 2013
parent "timotheecour" <timothee.cour2 gmail.com> writes:
 Even this were deemed a good idea, d-learn is not the correct 
 list to discuss this on.


Ok, I moved it to :
http://forum.dlang.org/post/zmjjfjdsnlscejsmbuec forum.dlang.org
Mar 19 2013