Hi

If you make one semantic error, DMD will spit out thousands of bogus errors so that the console window is overflowed so you cant actually tell what the real error is :(

How can I get DMD to stop after the first error?

In article <dau023$1ebk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mike says...
>
>Hi
>
>If you make one semantic error, DMD will spit out thousands of bogus errors so that the console window is overflowed so you cant actually tell what the real error is :(
>
>How can I get DMD to stop after the first error?
>
>

If you're use MS Windows, you can just pipe the output to a file, then read it back in, and just scroll down until you find the first error.

Example at the WinXP commandline:
---------------------------------
dmd mysource.d > output.txt
type output.txt | more

For information about "more" just type in "help more".

David L.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

MKoD: http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html

David L. Davis wrote:
> If you're use MS Windows, you can just pipe the output to a file, then read it
> back in, and just scroll down until you find the first error.
> 
> Example at the WinXP commandline:
> ---------------------------------
> dmd mysource.d > output.txt
> type output.txt | more
> 

[OffTopic]

LOL! windows has a "more"? and a "pipe"?
Wow, I never knew that!
I Actually never worked much with the command line on windwos.

"Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dav33s$2dei$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> LOL! windows has a "more"? and a "pipe"?
> Wow, I never knew that!
> I Actually never worked much with the command line on windwos.

Batch files aren't completely useless.. ;)

For that matter, I never quite understood why Walter used a linux script and a script interpreter to compile the D examples, when the script could very easily be rewritten with a batch file.  Seems like overkill.

Hasan Aljudy wrote:
> windows has a "more"? and a "pipe"?

The pipe isn't even needed here... "more output.txt" is practically the same as "type output.txt | more".