Re: Logging logs in Windows
On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 13:31:41 UTC, Alexander Zhirov wrote: I understand that programming under Windows is a shame for a programmer, but is there really no ready-made solution for using the system log in Windows? It would be a logging library like log4j that would have different logging backends.
Re: ImportC "no include path set"
On Wednesday, 8 February 2023 at 04:14:21 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote: On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 14:01:00 UTC, Elfstone wrote: On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 13:10:44 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote: On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:59 UTC, Elfstone wrote: On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 14:35:53 UTC, bachmeier wrote: [...] Thanks, it worked, but I still get the link error. I wasn't expecting to configure include paths and link the right libc myself. The doc says the simple "dmd hello.c" should create "hello.exe". It must be a bug. You need to run dmd from the developer command prompt on windows I always found this requirement weird From an UX point of view, what would the better experience be? Could DMD ship with the required files? I have 0 knowledge how the whole thing works so.. That I tried, and I got link error(s) - see my first post. :( Oh my bad, i misread your comment Make sure your visual studio install is up to date, maybe you have one component missing? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/vscpp-step-0-installation If you installed/updated VS without reboot, maybe a reboot could do the trick? I believe all three versions (2017,2019,2022) of my VS are up to date, and I have working C/C++ projects on them. But you encouraged me to give a few more tries, and I found out I had been using ..bin64/dmd.exe. Running ..bin/dmd.exe in VS Command Prompt turned out successful. Thx!
Re: ImportC "no include path set"
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 14:01:00 UTC, Elfstone wrote: On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 13:10:44 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote: On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:59 UTC, Elfstone wrote: On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 14:35:53 UTC, bachmeier wrote: [...] Thanks, it worked, but I still get the link error. I wasn't expecting to configure include paths and link the right libc myself. The doc says the simple "dmd hello.c" should create "hello.exe". It must be a bug. You need to run dmd from the developer command prompt on windows I always found this requirement weird From an UX point of view, what would the better experience be? Could DMD ship with the required files? I have 0 knowledge how the whole thing works so.. That I tried, and I got link error(s) - see my first post. :( Oh my bad, i misread your comment Make sure your visual studio install is up to date, maybe you have one component missing? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/vscpp-step-0-installation If you installed/updated VS without reboot, maybe a reboot could do the trick?
Re: Default arguments
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 09:49:46 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
Is it a feature or a bug that the code below can be compiled
without arguments?
You should use `@disable this()` recommended in the relevant
article:
https://dlang.org/spec/struct.html#disable_default_construction
```d
void main()
{
auto noArgument = Sarr!char(); // no compile
}
```
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 09:49:46 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
I want to learn one more thing. Why can't the default argument
be used in alias of structs?
```d
void main()
{
auto bar = Sarr!()(dlang.dup); // complied
assert(is(typeof(bar.arr[0]) == char));
}
```
😀
SDB@79
Wrong compiler error message regarding overload sets
Hi,
for the source code below, the compiler says:
app.d(26): constructor `app.TObject.this` hides base class
function `app.DelphiObject.this`
app.d(26): add `alias this = app.DelphiObject.this` to
`app.TObject`'s body to merge the overload sets
But if I add `alias this = app.DelphiObject.this` then the
compiler says, the syntax is wrong:
Error: identifier or `new` expected following `.`, not `this`
app.d(20): Error: cannot use syntax `alias this =
app.DelphiObject`, use `alias app.DelphiObject this` instead
But If I use `alias app.DelphiObject this` then another error is
shown:
app.d(22): Error: no identifier for declarator `app.DelphiObject`
app.d(22):`this` is a keyword, perhaps append `_` to make
it an identifier
What is the correct "alias this" syntax to be able to access the
super constructor (DelphiObjectReference)?
``` d
struct DelphiObjectReference
{
ptrdiff_t reference;
}
mixin template PascalClass(string name)
{
this (DelphiObjectReference r){}
}
class DelphiObject
{
this(){}
this (DelphiObjectReference r){}
}
class TObject : DelphiObject
{
mixin PascalClass!("System.TObject");
this(TObject AOwner){}
}
void main()
{
new TObject(DelphiObjectReference(123));
}
```
Kind regards
André
Re: Non-ugly ways to implement a 'static' class or namespace?
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 16:16:48 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: On 2/6/23 23:33, ProtectAndHide wrote: > On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 21:46:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: >> And as 'static class' and 'static struct' are already usable in D, a >> newcomer would definitely be confused with your "terrible" conclusion. > You being a little agressive don't you think? I see how wrong that came out. Apologies! What I meant was "your conclusion [about something here being] terrible". > My observation is very reasonable, and correct, Agreed. > The compiler will allow you to do all these things Agreed. > I can see no reason why anyone would want to do these things, in this > context. Agreed. > Nor can I see any reason, whatsoever, why the compiler would allow you > to do these things, in this context. My understanding is that these are side-effects of trying to have orthogonal features. Some combinations don't make sense. Having said that, since D does not use 'static class' for namespacing, should it go out of its way to implement logic to ban that combination at module scope? Perhaps. People have been discovering meaningless combinations of attributes in D all the time. (I forgot why that is so.) If D disallowed 'static' at module scope, we wouldn't be having this discussion anyway. If that happened, then 'class' would be accepted for being used for creating objects. Ali Well, in C++ I can just mark the destructor as = delete; The compiler now won't let me do those things that D would allow. D could do something similar I guess, with: @disable ~this(); In fact, a static class is a very useful abstraction. C# just makes it 'easy' for the programmer to define it as such, without all the nonsense other languages require. In addition, the C# compiler WILL prevent nonsense code, which is exactly what I want from a compiler ;-) When a compiler allows nonsense code, my confidence in it begins to wane...
Re: Non-ugly ways to implement a 'static' class or namespace?
On 2/6/23 23:33, ProtectAndHide wrote: > On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 21:46:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: >> And as 'static class' and 'static struct' are already usable in D, a >> newcomer would definitely be confused with your "terrible" conclusion. > You being a little agressive don't you think? I see how wrong that came out. Apologies! What I meant was "your conclusion [about something here being] terrible". > My observation is very reasonable, and correct, Agreed. > The compiler will allow you to do all these things Agreed. > I can see no reason why anyone would want to do these things, in this > context. Agreed. > Nor can I see any reason, whatsoever, why the compiler would allow you > to do these things, in this context. My understanding is that these are side-effects of trying to have orthogonal features. Some combinations don't make sense. Having said that, since D does not use 'static class' for namespacing, should it go out of its way to implement logic to ban that combination at module scope? Perhaps. People have been discovering meaningless combinations of attributes in D all the time. (I forgot why that is so.) If D disallowed 'static' at module scope, we wouldn't be having this discussion anyway. If that happened, then 'class' would be accepted for being used for creating objects. Ali
Re: Non-ugly ways to implement a 'static' class or namespace?
On 2/6/23 23:45, ProtectAndHide wrote: > Well I don't agree that D should boast about things that's its > implemented in an unprincipled way. Here, "unprincipled"[1] is just a descriptive word meaning that D does not insist on certain software engineering methodologies e.g. unlike Java where "everything is a class" or unlike some functional programming languages where "everything must be immutable".[2] > an unprincipled > implementation of something that just allows you do make mistakes, then > it should be looked at further, so see if it can be improved. Agreed. But the lack of 'static class' in D or its approximations are not in that category. I can imagine someone coming up ingeniously with a harmful way of using 'static class' but unless that is a real problem that affects D users then there is no issue. Ali [1] I remember reading or hearing "unprincipled" from Andrei Alexandrescu long time ago. [2] Actually, const and immutable being transitive can be seen as counter examples of D having a strong point on something. I think this "turtles all the way down" is not agreed by many users.
Re: ImportC "no include path set"
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 13:10:44 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote: On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:59 UTC, Elfstone wrote: On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 14:35:53 UTC, bachmeier wrote: [...] Thanks, it worked, but I still get the link error. I wasn't expecting to configure include paths and link the right libc myself. The doc says the simple "dmd hello.c" should create "hello.exe". It must be a bug. You need to run dmd from the developer command prompt on windows I always found this requirement weird From an UX point of view, what would the better experience be? Could DMD ship with the required files? I have 0 knowledge how the whole thing works so.. That I tried, and I got link error(s) - see my first post. :(
Re: ImportC "no include path set"
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 06:25:59 UTC, Elfstone wrote: On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 14:35:53 UTC, bachmeier wrote: On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 06:55:02 UTC, Elfstone wrote: So how am I supposed to set the include path? https://dlang.org/spec/importc.html#preprocessor The -Ppreprocessorflag switch passes preprocessorflag to the preprocessor. So if you normally use `-I/foo`, you'd add `-P-I/foo`. Thanks, it worked, but I still get the link error. I wasn't expecting to configure include paths and link the right libc myself. The doc says the simple "dmd hello.c" should create "hello.exe". It must be a bug. You need to run dmd from the developer command prompt on windows I always found this requirement weird From an UX point of view, what would the better experience be? Could DMD ship with the required files? I have 0 knowledge how the whole thing works so..
Default arguments
Hi All...
Is it a feature or a bug that the code below can be compiled
without arguments?
```d
import std.stdio, std.conv : to;
void main()
{
auto noArgument = Sarr!char(); // it works no argument...
assert(noArgument.length == 8);
string dlang = "D-lang";
const len = dlang.length;
auto withArgument = Sarr!char(dlang.dup); // complied
assert(withArgument.arr[0..len].to!string == dlang);
}
template Sarr(alias T = char)
{
enum s = size_t.sizeof / T.sizeof;
struct Sarr
{
T[s] arr = T(0);
auto length = s;
this(A)(A[] arr) in(s >= arr.length)
{
foreach(i, e; arr)
{
this.arr[i] = cast(T)e;
}
}
}
}
```
I want to learn one more thing. Why can't the default argument be
used in alias of structs? Voldemort types work just fine for
example:
```d
template Farr(alias T = char)
{
enum s = size_t.sizeof / T.sizeof;
struct Result
{
T[s] arr = T(0);
auto length = s;
}
Result Farr(A)(A[] arr) in(s >= arr.length)
{
Result result;
foreach(i, e; arr)
{
result.arr[i] = cast(T)e;
}
return result;
}
}
import std.stdio;
void main()
{
auto arr = [ 'd', 'e' ];
auto foo = Farr(arr);
foo.writeln; // Result("de\0\0\0\0\0\0", 8)
// auto bar = Sarr(arr); // no complied
}
unittest
{
auto arr = [ 'd', 'e' ];
ref auto addAndReturn(T)(ref T[] arr) {
auto a = arr[$-1];
return arr ~= ++a;
}
auto len2 = Sarr!int(arr);
assert(len2.length == 2);
auto len4 = Sarr!short(addAndReturn(arr)); // add 'f'
assert(len4.length == 4);
auto len8 = Sarr!byte(addAndReturn(arr)); // add'g'
assert(len8.length == 8);
}
```
SDB@79
