View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
November 12, 2004
suggestion / request - compile directories
can we have dmd compiling all the *.d files on a directory
(optionally subdirectories also)?

for instance:

dmd -c dirName
or 
dmd -c dirName\*.d

also reading the source names from a file would be nice good to have.

I would say these are important to make D viable for larger projects.

"*.d" works on linux because the shell will expande the wildcard
but the windows shell doesn't (at least for me).

the advantage is that we would have a portable solution to compile
larger application without going to makefiles an the such.
DMD being so fast we don't care if the source was not modified.

once you implemented that please include it on link.exe as I'm
running into "line too long" on windows
(maybe link has a different way to do it, I need to read the manuals)

Ant
November 12, 2004
Re: suggestion / request - compile directories
In article <cn2k26$juc$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ant says...
>
>
>can we have dmd compiling all the *.d files on a directory
>(optionally subdirectories also)?
>
>for instance:
>
>dmd -c dirName
>or 
>dmd -c dirName\*.d
>
>once you implemented that please include it on link.exe

hmmmm... I mean lib.exe, not link.exe

Ant
November 14, 2004
Re: suggestion / request - compile directories
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:15:18 +0000 (UTC), Ant <Ant_member@pathlink.com> 
wrote:
> can we have dmd compiling all the *.d files on a directory
> (optionally subdirectories also)?
>
> for instance:
>
> dmd -c dirName
> or
> dmd -c dirName\*.d
>
> also reading the source names from a file would be nice good to have.

Have you tried:
  dmd -c @dirName\file.txt

> I would say these are important to make D viable for larger projects.
>
> "*.d" works on linux because the shell will expande the wildcard
> but the windows shell doesn't (at least for me).

The windows shell does not expand wildcards like the unix ones tend to. 
Personally I cannot decide which I like better... one one hand expanding 
them makes writing an application simpler, on the other it can be a pain 
(not impossible, just a pain) when trying to pass a * as an argument.

> the advantage is that we would have a portable solution to compile
> larger application without going to makefiles an the such.
> DMD being so fast we don't care if the source was not modified.
>
> once you implemented that please include it on link.exe as I'm
> running into "line too long" on windows
> (maybe link has a different way to do it, I need to read the manuals)

I suspect link.exe will allow @<file> as well, that's just a guess based 
on the fact that most (all?) the Digital Mars tools seem to allow it.

Regan

-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
November 14, 2004
Re: suggestion / request - compile directories
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:42:26 +1300, Regan Heath wrote:

> 
> Have you tried:
>    dmd -c @dirName\file.txt

doesn't seem to work. any hidden trick?
how did you learn about it?

> The windows shell does not expand wildcards like the unix ones tend to. 
> Personally I cannot decide which I like better... one one hand expanding 
> them makes writing an application simpler, on the other it can be a pain 
> (not impossible, just a pain) when trying to pass a * as an argument.

surround it with "\"" or "'" doesn't seem that difficult to me.
it's the same as passing a space.

Ant
November 14, 2004
Re: suggestion / request - compile directories
Ant wrote:
>>Have you tried:
>>   dmd -c @dirName\file.txt
> 
> 
> how did you learn about it?

You can look here http://digitalmars.com/ctg/sc.html under 
"@responsefile". Hope this helps

Tom
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home