On 16.10.2011 04:16, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 10/15/11 5:00 PM, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 15.10.2011, 18:24 Uhr, schrieb Ary Manzana <[email protected]>:
On 10/14/11 5:16 PM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:10:29 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-10-14 15:26, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/14/11 6:08 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-10-14 12:19, foobar wrote:
Has anyone looked at Nemerle's design for this? They have an SQL
macro which allows to write SQL such as:
var employName = "FooBar"
SQL (DBconn, "select * from employees where name = $employName");
what that supposed to do is bind the variable(s) and it also
validates the sql query with the database. This is all done at
compile-time.
My understanding is that D's compile-time features are powerful
enough to implement this.
You cannot connect to a database in D at compile time. You could
some
form of validation and escape the query without connecting to the
database.
A little SQL interpreter can be written that figures out e.g. the
names
of the columns involved.
Andrei
But you still won't be able to verify the columns to the actual
database
scheme?
One approach would be to write a separate tool that connects to the
database and writes out a representation of the schema to a source
file. At compile time, the representation is statically imported, and
used to verify the data model.
If we had preprocessor support, the tool could be run as such,
checking the model just before passing the source to the compiler.
Yeah, but you need a separate tool.
In Nemerle it seems you can do everything just in Nemerle...
It would be awesome if CTFE would be implemented by JITting functions,
not by reinventing the wheel and implementing a handcrafted
interpreter...
I wonder if that would work well with cross-compiling. If you blindly
JIT functions, they may end up using structs of the wrong size, or
integers with different endianness. Compile for 64-bit on a 32-bit
machine. What size is size_t during CTFE?
I don't understand this quite well. I want JITted functions to just
generate code that ultimately will be compiled. It's like what CTFE is
doing now, except that instead of doing it by interpreting every bit and
spec of the language you would compile the function, run it to generate
code, and then compile the code for the target machine.
[snip]
Maybe I'm not taking something into account... what is it?
You're assuming that the compiler can run the code it's generating. This
isn't true in general. Suppose you're on x86, compiling for ARM. You
can't run the ARM code from the compiler.
