On Thursday, 11 August 2016 at 20:44:12 UTC, Lodovico Giaretta
wrote:
On Thursday, 11 August 2016 at 18:47:05 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
...
Additionally, allowing rdmd to be configured through files
makes more complicated configurations more reasonable. For
example, if your scripts depend on a dub package, you could do
this easily in a configuration file, whereas doing this on the
command line would be a nightmare.
In my opinion, adding this complexity to rdmd is overkill. When
you need to use this, IMHO, you should write a little shell
script that calls rdmd passing the correct arguments. It's very
easy, just a couple of lines of shell script. Maybe even a
one-liner.
In file rdmd_wrapper.sh:
rdmd -my-special -command-line -parameters $*
When you call it this way:
./rdmd_wrapper mymodule.d
It will execute this:
rdmd -my-special -command-line -parameters mymodule.d
If you need the same configuration really often, you can add
the wrapper to the path, so you can call it from everywhere.
But this is just my opinion, many may disagree.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you, thanks for
providing your opinion. A wrapper script would certainly solve
the simple cases. The con is that it adds an extra layer to the
script and every application will have their own solution which
makes a project more isolated. The wrapper script was the first
solution that came to my mind but as I thought about
configuration files, they seemed worth considering.
I'm curious what you think about the more complex operations that
configuration files could facilitate. The example I gave was that
this could enable a script to use dub package dependencies that
are automatically downloaded and built by rdmd, but I'm sure
there are other interesting use cases. An argument could be made
that this should go in an external tool rather then rdmd though,
but that thought seemed a bit odd since rdmd is already a wrapper
around dmd itself, but maybe that's ok. Do you have any new
features rdmd could support if it had configuration files?
