On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 01:41:58 UTC, Johnson wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 01:31:13 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner
wrote:
On Monday, 14 August 2017 at 22:51:04 UTC, Johnson Jones wrote:
string do()
{
string x;
x = "adsf";
pragma(msg, x);
return x;
}
"do" is a keyword in D, you can't use it as an identifier.
wow, way to fail to realize generalities.
The failure lies on your side in not providing syntactically
valid code in a discussion that's about semantics.
fails because the compiler believes that x is not known at
compile time.
There are multiple phases making up D's compile time, the wiki
has an excellent page by H. S. Teoh on the subject [1].
Applied to your example: The pragma in the function body is
handled before the function body is interpreted, so the
compiler error is correct; whether or not the error message
should be more explicit is another matter.
So, that is a generic answer for a generic post. It says
nothing about what can be done, but what only can't be done.
Then I have to assume you haven't read the page I linked to,
since it describes the different compile time mechanics and how
they interact with each other (i.e. what you can do with them).
There is nothing stopping one's ability to output compile time
information at compile time from compile time functions. Again,
way to fail to realize generalities.
The failure lies with you being unwilling to acknownledge the
different phases of compile time; specifically, that pragmas
cannot access variables initialized in CTFE (__ctfeWrite can,
however).
Just because something [rant]
You are entitled to your opinion, but it's not relevant in this
(technical) discussion.
It obviously is when do is ran as a ctfe. This makes some
types of programming difficult to debug because we have to
duplicate any instance of "do" and cannot output intermediate
values.
But, how can we make this actually work?
[...]
I recommend reading up on the history of CTFE output in
D[2][3][4][5][6].
If you want to see CTFE output in D, you could pick up where
Stefan left off in the latest attempt[6].
[1]
https://wiki.dlang.org/User:Quickfur/Compile-time_vs._compile-time
[2]
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/CTFE_writeln_140241.html
[3] http://forum.dlang.org/thread/j1n0l7$235r$1...@digitalmars.com
[4] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/296
[5] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/692
[6] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6101
It seems like he's already done all the heavy lifting and who
knows best rather than him to implement it in his own redesign
of ctfe(to fix the mess that it was in precisely for the
reasons I stated above)?
newCTFE is not a redesign of the compile time architecture, it is
more performant CTFE engine (Period). That being said, anyone who
wants to tackle a small issue to contribute to D could've
implemented __ctfeWrite. My own ~30 minute attempt (of which 25+
minutes were spent reading dmd source) is open [1].
[1] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7082
