On Saturday, 4 February 2012 at 20:58:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 4:11 PM, bearophile wrote:
>> Aren't less than 10 minutes enough to fix this simple problem? I don't know
>> why Walter likes to use ".c" as suffix for those files, I don't remember his
>> answers on this topic, I have never appreciated this naming decision.
>
> Back in the day, when most of this was started and the African continent was still attached to South America, the following extensions were in wide use for C++ files:
>
> .cpp
> .c++
> .cxx
> .C (that's capital C; obviously that never worked on Windows)
> .c
>
> (and corresponding .h suffixes).
>
> None of them achieved any dominance. I myself used .cpp/.hpp for a while, and simply grew tired of it. The compiler sources were originally in C, and when they were converted to C++ it was easier to just keep the same file names (and yes, .c was also in wide use for C++). All the C++ compilers accepted .c files, distinguishing by using a switch (dmc -cpp) or by name (gcc/g++). It just was never any problem.
>
> For me, I find worrying about it about as productive as arguing whether tabs should be set to 4 or 8.

Except it consistently confuses people and tools. .cpp or .cc is all I see nowadays, and DMD should modernise. Things may have been different in the (eighteen) eighties, but get with the times!

On 2/4/2012 8:52 AM, Zachary Lund wrote:
> 1. I don't care about such trivial things since it doesn't make sense to change
> them currently. However, it was an obvious problem when the name was first set
> and other than D1 being deprecated, it's still a problem now (sort of). Arch
> Linux chose to remove the D1 package and add the D2 package and not keep both
> simply because of the retarded name incompatibilities.

The problem is more global than that. Many people have multiple versions of dmd on their system - from one release to the next. It's not going to work to keep renaming dmd for every release.

dmd keeps a dmd.conf in the directory where it resides, which tells it where to find the right version of the library, etc. That means that all your makefile needs to do is pick the right dmd, either by setting the path, an environment variable, or hardcoding it in the makefile.

"Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:jgk65f$c0b$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> .C (that's capital C; obviously that never worked on Windows)

That *can* work. Windows filenames may be case-insensitive, but they're certainly not caseless. Not from Win95 onward anyway. (Obviously I'm not saying .C is a good way to go.)

>
> For me, I find worrying about it about as productive as arguing whether tabs should be set to 4 or 8.

Ok, so then why not just make the leap? Nobody *wants* .c (including you, apperently), and many people would find it to work better with .cpp. If you're so indifferent about it, then why keep clinging to .c?

On Saturday, 4 February 2012 at 21:14:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:jgk65f$c0b$1@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> .C (that's capital C; obviously that never worked on Windows)
>
> That *can* work. Windows filenames may be case-insensitive, but they're certainly not caseless. Not from Win95 onward anyway. (Obviously I'm not saying .C is a good way to go.)
>
>>
>> For me, I find worrying about it about as productive as arguing whether tabs should be set to 4 or 8.
>
> Ok, so then why not just make the leap? Nobody *wants* .c (including you, apperently), and many people would find it to work better with .cpp. If you're so indifferent about it, then why keep clinging to .c?

There is at least one serious issue with moving - it would break *all* dmd pull requests. That does not mean I agree with the .c extension, however. :)

On 2012-02-04 22:11, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 2/4/2012 8:52 AM, Zachary Lund wrote:
>> 1. I don't care about such trivial things since it doesn't make sense
>> to change
>> them currently. However, it was an obvious problem when the name was
>> first set
>> and other than D1 being deprecated, it's still a problem now (sort
>> of). Arch
>> Linux chose to remove the D1 package and add the D2 package and not
>> keep both
>> simply because of the retarded name incompatibilities.
>
> The problem is more global than that. Many people have multiple versions
> of dmd on their system - from one release to the next. It's not going to
> work to keep renaming dmd for every release.

This is just the case DVM is made for. It will fix most of these problems.

https://bitbucket.org/doob/dvm

> dmd keeps a dmd.conf in the directory where it resides, which tells it
> where to find the right version of the library, etc. That means that all
> your makefile needs to do is pick the right dmd, either by setting the
> path, an environment variable, or hardcoding it in the makefile.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

"q66" <quaker66@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ejygjkiyboebpginjyuc@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
> On Saturday, 4 February 2012 at 21:14:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:jgk65f$c0b$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> .C (that's capital C; obviously that never worked on Windows)
>>
>> That *can* work. Windows filenames may be case-insensitive, but they're certainly not caseless. Not from Win95 onward anyway. (Obviously I'm not saying .C is a good way to go.)
>>
>>>
>>> For me, I find worrying about it about as productive as arguing whether tabs should be set to 4 or 8.
>>
>> Ok, so then why not just make the leap? Nobody *wants* .c (including you, apperently), and many people would find it to work better with .cpp. If you're so indifferent about it, then why keep clinging to .c?
>
> There is at least one serious issue with moving - it would break *all* dmd pull requests. That does not mean I agree with the .c extension, however. :)

I thought Git was supposed to be able to intelligently handle moved/renamed files? So shouldn't fixing those pull requests amount to "pull, possibly fix merge conflicts, push" just like with any other upstream change?

On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 03:08:42AM -0600, Zachary Lund wrote:
> On 02/04/2012 03:02 AM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> >On Saturday, 4 February 2012 at 07:00:53 UTC, James Miller wrote:
[...]
> >There isn't a centralized projects repository. Dsource was, back in the day, but that obviously has had a falling out. There is working being done on a D "CPAN" called Orbit I believe. We'll see if the community does take it up.
> >
> >Progress is being made on most everything listed and has already been greatly improved in the last couple years.
> 
> CPAN for D would be amazing I think.

It would be CDAN? :-)


T

-- 
WINDOWS = Will Install Needless Data On Whole System -- CompuMan

On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 01:02:39PM -0800, Walter Bright wrote: [...]
> You're right that searching for "D" is hopeless. But searching for "D programming" works great.

Actually, to Google's credit, it seems to have adapted to my repeatedly clicking only on D programming related pages in the search results page, and now all I have to do is to add "d" to my search queries and it will
>50% of the time actually return relevant results.

Doesn't help newcomers, though.


T

-- 
Never trust an operating system you don't have source for! -- Martin Schulze

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:jgkar8$jon$1@digitalmars.com...
> I thought Git was supposed to be able to intelligently handle moved/renamed files? So shouldn't fixing those pull requests amount to "pull, possibly fix merge conflicts, push" just like with any other upstream change?
>

Git doesn't do everything it's supposed to be able to do, at least not smoothly.  Considering how minor this is, it should be done some time when there are less pull requests open.

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 17:17:28 -0500
"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote:

> I thought Git was supposed to be able to intelligently handle moved/renamed files? So shouldn't fixing those pull requests amount to "pull, possibly fix merge conflicts, push" just like with any other upstream change?

I thought the same and believe that Hg can do it properly.


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 
One who is not connected with the Supreme can have neither transcendental intelligence nor a steady mind, without which there is no possibility of peace. And how can there be any happiness without peace?

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810