Am 17.06.2016 um 13:06 schrieb mark_mcs:
I'm not sure if this is a defect or a conscious decision so I thought
I'd ask the question first. Is there a reason why Dub on Windows uses
the APPDATA environment variable, rather than LOCALAPPDATA? The APPDATA
variable points to the roaming profile
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is
support for single-file packages, which can be used to write
shebang-style scripts on Posix systems:
#!/usr/bin/env dub
/++ dub.sdl:
name "colortest"
On 06/13/2016 07:31 AM, Kagamin wrote:
On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 17:45:54 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 06/08/2016 11:04 AM, Kagamin wrote:
BTW do people find nested comments particularly useful?
God yes. It's the *only* block comment I ever use. Non-nesting comment
blocks are a worthless
Am 13.06.2016 um 11:21 schrieb Andre Pany:
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 12:15:24 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
You need to use the --single switch:
dub build --single=app.d --build=release
For the commandline that you have used, the arguments "build
--build=release" will be passed to the compiled
On Friday, 10 June 2016 at 17:45:54 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On 06/08/2016 11:04 AM, Kagamin wrote:
BTW do people find nested comments particularly useful?
God yes. It's the *only* block comment I ever use. Non-nesting
comment blocks are a worthless PITA with no real benefit: You
can't
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is
support for single-file packages, which can be used to write
shebang-style scripts on Posix systems:
[...]
That is really useful! Thanks again for all the work you
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 12:15:24 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
You need to use the --single switch:
dub build --single=app.d --build=release
For the commandline that you have used, the arguments "build
--build=release" will be passed to the compiled app.d
executable instead. I'll deploy
On 7 June 2016 at 19:54, Sönke Ludwig
wrote:
> DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is support for
> single-file packages, which can be used to write shebang-style scripts on
> Posix systems:
>
> #!/usr/bin/env dub
> /++
On 06/08/2016 11:04 AM, Kagamin wrote:
BTW do people find nested comments particularly useful?
God yes. It's the *only* block comment I ever use. Non-nesting comment
blocks are a worthless PITA with no real benefit: You can't comment out
a block if the block already contains a block comment.
hmm, actually thats not quite the issue, I made a mock set of projects
and it works with both versions.
With 0.9.25 I get:
Sub package onyx-config: doesn't exist.
Whereas with 0.9.24 my package compiles. I'll see if I can figure out
why, sorry for the noise.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:53 AM,
Am 10.06.2016 um 10:02 schrieb Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce:
I made a version that ignores comment like characters in strings.
I've also made a version that requires the recipe to be on the second line.
Both are in my fork of dub. I can fix my pull request to which ever
one you guys
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Rory McGuire wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Steven Schveighoffer via
> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> On 6/9/16 4:37 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 09.06.2016 um 15:06 schrieb Steven
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On 6/9/16 4:37 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>
>> Am 09.06.2016 um 15:06 schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
>>>
>>> On 6/8/16 2:45 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>> (...)
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is
support for single-file packages, which can be used to write
shebang-style scripts on Posix systems:
[...]
I've barely started using D, but dub works like a charm and
On 6/9/16 4:37 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 09.06.2016 um 15:06 schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On 6/8/16 2:45 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
(...)
Apart from what I've already mentioned in my first reply to Jacob, I
think there is nothing else that couldn't be solved in either case.
"It's still
Am 09.06.2016 um 15:06 schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
On 6/8/16 2:45 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> (...)
Apart from what I've already mentioned in my first reply to Jacob, I
think there is nothing else that couldn't be solved in either case.
"It's still possible to put something else in front of
On 6/8/16 2:45 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 08.06.2016 um 16:58 schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
I agree with Jacob. A comment is a comment.
Well, there are normal comments, doc comments and now DUB recipe
comments. But at least if doc comments serve as an analogy, those are
possible with all
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 12:15:24 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
You need to use the --single switch:
dub build --single=app.d --build=release
For the commandline that you have used, the arguments "build
--build=release" will be passed to the compiled app.d
executable instead. I'll deploy
Am 09.06.2016 um 12:23 schrieb Andre Pany:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is
support for single-file packages, which can be used to write
shebang-style scripts on Posix systems:
Full change log:
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 10:43:31 UTC, drug wrote:
09.06.2016 13:23, Andre Pany пишет:
Untested, but try
```
dub build app.d --build=release
```
Unfortunately it is not working:
dub answers: Failed to find a package named 'app.d'.
Kind regards
André
09.06.2016 13:23, Andre Pany пишет:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is
support for single-file packages, which can be used to write
shebang-style scripts on Posix systems:
Full change log:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is
support for single-file packages, which can be used to write
shebang-style scripts on Posix systems:
Full change log:
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 08:02:21 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 07:35:35 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
while calling dub within the directory containing app.d I
dub app.d
Without passing a file name, dub will look for a project
configuration.
Thanks for the info. In my
On Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 07:35:35 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
while calling dub within the directory containing app.d I
dub app.d
Without passing a file name, dub will look for a project
configuration.
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25
is...
Great work! I've spread the news to all my hackish friends.
I made a little parser, it doesn't handle nested + comments (just
needs a depth check).
https://github.com/dlang/dub/pull/871
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Rory McGuire wrote:
> regex version pull request:
> https://github.com/dlang/dub/pull/869
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at
regex version pull request:
https://github.com/dlang/dub/pull/869
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Rory McGuire wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Sönke Ludwig
> wrote:
>> Am 08.06.2016 um 08:59 schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
>>>
>>> On
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Sönke Ludwig
wrote:
> Am 08.06.2016 um 08:59 schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
>>
>> On 2016-06-07 20:42, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>
>>> No, it has to be the "+" variant (the first /+ +/ comment is evaluated).
>>
>>
>> That's unfortunate.
>
Am 08.06.2016 um 16:58 schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
I agree with Jacob. A comment is a comment.
Well, there are normal comments, doc comments and now DUB recipe
comments. But at least if doc comments serve as an analogy, those are
possible with all three comment styles, so that could be
On 2016-06-08 16:58, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I agree with Jacob. A comment is a comment. There is no reason one needs
to use specifically /+. In fact the only reason for the existence of /+
is to allow nesting of comments -- which doesn't apply here.
And basically the only reason why /+
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 09:15:09 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Two good properties about restricting to /+ +/ is that it's
still possible to put something else in front of it, and that
it stands out from the usual /* */ comments.
It stands out because we don't have a recognizable convention
On 6/8/16 8:21 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2016-06-08 11:15, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I generally really do appreciate your critique, but without backing
reasons it doesn't really have a constructive effect.
Two good properties about restricting to /+ +/ is that it's still
possible to put
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:27:31 UTC, burjui wrote:
That reason alone is enough. Restricting DUB special comments
to only /++/ will put users off, because now they know that
there's a cool feature in DUB, but it only works with certain
types of comments, that nobody wants to remember (why
Am 08.06.2016 um 15:27 schrieb burjui:
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 12:21:57 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
It's just that since the language support other styles of comments one
could think that all comments are supported and it will cause
confusion if only one style is supported.
That reason
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 12:21:57 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
It's just that since the language support other styles of
comments one could think that all comments are supported and it
will cause confusion if only one style is supported.
That reason alone is enough. Restricting DUB special
On 2016-06-08 11:15, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I generally really do appreciate your critique, but without backing
reasons it doesn't really have a constructive effect.
Two good properties about restricting to /+ +/ is that it's still
possible to put something else in front of it, and that it stands
Am 08.06.2016 um 08:59 schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
On 2016-06-07 20:42, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
No, it has to be the "+" variant (the first /+ +/ comment is evaluated).
That's unfortunate.
I generally really do appreciate your critique, but without backing
reasons it doesn't really have a
On 2016-06-07 20:42, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
No, it has to be the "+" variant (the first /+ +/ comment is evaluated).
That's unfortunate.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Am 07.06.2016 um 15:45 schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
On 2016-06-07 13:22, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Oh, I typed that by accident, should be /+ dub.sdl: ... +/
BTW, /+ dub.json: ... +/ is also possible, of course.
Does it work with all kind of comments D supports?
No, it has to be the "+" variant (the
On 07 Jun 2016 11:56, "Sönke Ludwig"
wrote:
>
> DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is support
for single-file packages, which can be used to write shebang-style scripts
on Posix systems:
>
> #!/usr/bin/env dub
> /++ dub.sdl:
On 2016-06-07 13:22, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Oh, I typed that by accident, should be /+ dub.sdl: ... +/
BTW, /+ dub.json: ... +/ is also possible, of course.
Does it work with all kind of comments D supports?
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is
support for single-file packages
So nice. Thanks so much!
This is great for solutions to project euler problems!
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
#!/usr/bin/env dub
/++ dub.sdl:
name "colortest"
dependency "color" version="~>0.0.3"
+/
this is exactly what i could make good use of for my scripting
stuff. thank you for implementing
Am 07.06.2016 um 13:09 schrieb Marc Schütz:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is
support for single-file packages, which can be used to write
shebang-style scripts on Posix systems:
#!/usr/bin/env dub
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is
support for single-file packages, which can be used to write
shebang-style scripts on Posix systems:
#!/usr/bin/env dub
/++ dub.sdl:
name "colortest"
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is
support for single-file packages, which can be used to write
shebang-style scripts on Posix systems:
#!/usr/bin/env dub
/++ dub.sdl:
name "colortest"
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is
support for single-file packages, which can be used to write
shebang-style scripts on Posix systems:
[...]
This is great - very nice feature.
That was one of the
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 09:54:19 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is
support for single-file packages, which can be used to write
shebang-style scripts on Posix systems:
#!/usr/bin/env dub
/++ dub.sdl:
name "colortest"
DUB 1.0.0 is nearing completion. The new feature over 0.9.25 is support
for single-file packages, which can be used to write shebang-style
scripts on Posix systems:
#!/usr/bin/env dub
/++ dub.sdl:
name "colortest"
dependency "color" version="~>0.0.3"
+/
void
49 matches
Mail list logo