On 2012-02-22 23:43, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 23:33:57 Bernard Helyer wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 22:05:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Then what happens when you have
dmc -c foo/a.d foo_a.d
Good point.
Regardless, I really wouldn't like the idea of screwing with
the object file
names to try and avoid collisions.
Well, the thing is in this case everything is being passed to the
compiler. It knows the names of everything. But yeah, I think
complaining is fine _if_ dmd allows individual modules to be
named explicitly. Otherwise, all in one is good. But really, even
prefixing it would be better than what we have now. What about
'module.foo_a.o' if foo_a isn't in a package?
I really think that it should either put it in a single object file or complain
and disallow it. Really, the correct way to build such modules is to put each
object file in a directory hierarchy which matches the modules. Anything else
is a mess. But that's the job a build tool, not the compiler. So, it should do
what's reasonable, which doesn't include renaming files to avoid module
collisions IMHO.
- Jonathan M Davis
I don't agree. The compiler should just put the object files in the same
directory and use the fully qualified module name.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
