November 09, 2003
"Ant" <Ant_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message .
>
> I didn't think one would excludes the other (?)...
> (oh, you mean the main function must be removed?
> how about version(ddepcheckLIB){}else{main...})

Also I would make the switches to 'set' methods instead. I'll rather make another file :)

>
> Any way you cut it the print routine shouldn't be on the main function.
> (I my opinion)

A matter of taste, but I might do it. (They are only 3 lines each.)

Lars Ivar Igesund


November 09, 2003
In article <bomhpr$1agg$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Lars Ivar Igesund says...
>
>>
>> Any way you cut it the print routine shouldn't be on the main function.
>> (I my opinion)
>
>A matter of taste, but I might do it.

I'm glad we don't work on the same projects... ;)
(I give hell to my coleagues for things like that)

> (They are only 3 lines each.)

each!? you mean you have duplicated code?! ;)
(I give hell to my coleagues for things like that)

:)

Ant


November 10, 2003
"Ant" <Ant_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bomiks$1blk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <bomhpr$1agg$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Lars Ivar Igesund says...
> >
> >>
> >> Any way you cut it the print routine shouldn't be on the main function.
> >> (I my opinion)
> >
> >A matter of taste, but I might do it.
>
> I'm glad we don't work on the same projects... ;)
> (I give hell to my coleagues for things like that)

Any special reason?

>
> > (They are only 3 lines each.)
>
> each!? you mean you have duplicated code?! ;)

No, there's two ways to print out the deps.

Lars Ivar Igesund


November 10, 2003
In article <bondjc$2g2q$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Lars Ivar Igesund says...
>
>> >A matter of taste, but I might do it.
>>
>> I'm glad we don't work on the same projects... ;)
>> (I give hell to my coleagues for things like that)
>
>Any special reason?

2 bigies:
- maintainability.
- reusability.

>> each!? you mean you have duplicated code?! ;)
>
>No, there's two ways to print out the deps.

(1)
depfile.printf(depmods[i] ~ " " ~ depfiles[i] ~ " " ~ depdepths[i] ~ "\n");

(2)
I thought we could do:
stdout.printf(toStringz(depmods[i] ~ " " ~ depfiles[i] ~ " " ~ depdepths[i] ~
"\n"));

or something like that.

Ant


November 12, 2003
Version 0.9.2 is now up.
Some code was moved out of main (courtesy of Ant).
A switch -p/--checkprivate was added. This will make
the app search through private imports too (for
diagnostic use only.)
I also fixed it so that infinite recursion is now impossible.
Also, it makes the search faster.

Also, the first iteration of ddepchecklib.d is up at http://www.igesund.net/larsivar/ddepchecklib.d

The module has a struct
ddepcheck with the following functions:

  void setCheckRuntime(bool value)
  void setCheckPrivate(bool value)
  void setSearchDepth(int newdepth)
  void addImportPath(char [] path)
  DepStruct getDeps(char [] file)

The DepStruct looks like this:

export
struct DepStruct {

  char [] filename;
  char [] modname;
  int [] depths;
  int numdeps;
  DepStruct [] dependencies;
}

I haven't tested this, so I expect it to have errors
all over the place (also I'm not very used to structs,
so I expect it to sport access violations like no other app.)

Lars Ivar Igesund




November 12, 2003
And version 0.9.3. Two small buglets were fixed
(one for dependency paths and one for "//" comments.)

Lars Ivar Igesund

"Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivi@stud.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:bostke$1n75$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Version 0.9.2 is now up.


November 28, 2003
Version 0.9.4 is up. Only change is support for dmd 0.76 instead of previous versions.

Lars Ivar Igesund

"Lars Ivar Igesund" <larsivi@stud.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:bnt6e3$1624$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Has changed name to
> ddepcheck
> and can be found at
> http://www.igesund.net/larsivar/ddepcheck.d
>
> Some minor bugs has been fixed.
>
> Lars Ivar Igesund
>
>


Next ›   Last »
1 2
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home