February 18, 2008 Re: packageless modules == pure evil? Answer: No | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Derek Parnell | Derek Parnell wrote:
> <DUH manifestation="slaps forehead"> Oh I know what I can do ... release
> the version of Bud I'm using to the community.</DUH>
Yes, please. :)
|
February 19, 2008 Re: packageless modules == pure evil? Answer: No | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Derek Parnell | Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:13:44 +1100, Derek Parnell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:40:02 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a version that causes the problem. It actually seems to be an issue with build tools rather than DMD itself.
>> I'm using BUD v3.05 and I can't get it to go wrong. It works as expected in
>> all four conditions.
>>
>> PWD = packageless
>> bud testitok
>> bud b\testit
>>
>> PWD = packageless\b
>> bud ..\testitok
>> bud testit
>>
>> So I'm not sure what to do to help.
>
> <DUH manifestation="slaps forehead"> Oh I know what I can do ... release
> the version of Bud I'm using to the community.</DUH>
>
That would be great! I know I've been eagerly waiting for the environment variable support that you've supposedly had implemented for about a year now.
--bb
|
February 19, 2008 Re: packageless modules == pure evil? Answer: No | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Bill Baxter | On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:05:38 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote: > Derek Parnell wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:13:44 +1100, Derek Parnell wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:40:02 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote: >>> >>>> Here's a version that causes the problem. It actually seems to be an issue with build tools rather than DMD itself. >>> I'm using BUD v3.05 and I can't get it to go wrong. It works as expected in all four conditions. >>> >>> PWD = packageless >>> bud testitok >>> bud b\testit >>> >>> PWD = packageless\b >>> bud ..\testitok >>> bud testit >>> >>> So I'm not sure what to do to help. >> >> <DUH manifestation="slaps forehead"> Oh I know what I can do ... release the version of Bud I'm using to the community.</DUH> >> > > That would be great! I know I've been eagerly waiting for the environment variable support that you've supposedly had implemented for about a year now. Oh yeah ... I did do that. It now has a function called 'ExpandEnvVar'. /* Function to replace tokens in the form ... %ENVNAME% $ENVNAME ( Terminated by a non-alpha character ) ${ENVNAME} $(ENVNAME) with environment data. Notes: (1) '%%' is replaced by a single '%' (2) '$$' is replaced by a single '$' (3) The forms $(...) and ${...} can be nested. eg. ${FOO${BAR}} - If 'BAR' is defined as "test" then this tries to find out what 'FOOtest' is defined as. (4) The forms $(...) and ${...} can optionally have default values. eg. $(FOO=yes) - if 'FOO' not defined it is expanded to 'yes' $(BAR=${QWERTY}} - if 'BAR' not defined it is expanded to whatever 'QWERTY' is defined as. (5) The form $(...) is expanded recursively. e.g. $(FOO) - if 'FOO' is defined as "${BAR}" then the result is returned as whatever 'BAR' is defined as. */ -- Derek (skype: derek.j.parnell) Melbourne, Australia 19/02/2008 12:25:10 PM |
February 19, 2008 Re: packageless modules == pure evil? Answer: No | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Derek Parnell | Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:05:38 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:13:44 +1100, Derek Parnell wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:40:02 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here's a version that causes the problem. It actually seems to be an issue with build tools rather than DMD itself.
>>>> I'm using BUD v3.05 and I can't get it to go wrong. It works as expected in
>>>> all four conditions.
>>>>
>>>> PWD = packageless
>>>> bud testitok
>>>> bud b\testit
>>>>
>>>> PWD = packageless\b
>>>> bud ..\testitok
>>>> bud testit
>>>>
>>>> So I'm not sure what to do to help.
>>> <DUH manifestation="slaps forehead"> Oh I know what I can do ... release
>>> the version of Bud I'm using to the community.</DUH>
>>>
>> That would be great! I know I've been eagerly waiting for the environment variable support that you've supposedly had implemented for about a year now.
>
> Oh yeah ... I did do that. It now has a function called 'ExpandEnvVar'.
>
> /*
> Function to replace tokens in the form ...
> %ENVNAME%
> $ENVNAME ( Terminated by a non-alpha character )
> ${ENVNAME}
> $(ENVNAME)
> with environment data.
>
> Notes:
> (1) '%%' is replaced by a single '%'
> (2) '$$' is replaced by a single '$'
> (3) The forms $(...) and ${...} can be nested.
> eg. ${FOO${BAR}} - If 'BAR' is defined as "test" then this tries to
> find out what 'FOOtest' is defined as.
> (4) The forms $(...) and ${...} can optionally have default values.
> eg. $(FOO=yes) - if 'FOO' not defined it is expanded to 'yes'
> $(BAR=${QWERTY}} - if 'BAR' not defined it is expanded to
> whatever 'QWERTY' is defined as.
> (5) The form $(...) is expanded recursively.
> e.g. $(FOO) - if 'FOO' is defined as "${BAR}" then the result
> is returned as whatever 'BAR' is defined as.
> */
Sweet! Now just release that puppy, already! Or stop teasing us with descriptions of functionality we can't have. :-P
--bb
|
February 19, 2008 Re: packageless modules == pure evil? Answer: No | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Bill Baxter | On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:41:53 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote: > Now just release that puppy, already! Or stop teasing us with descriptions of functionality we can't have. :-P I'm at the office right now but the master source is back at home, so I'll get onto tonight after work. As I remember, it wasn't too happy with the latest DMD2 compiler ... but I can do without sleep to fix that ;-) -- Derek (skype: derek.j.parnell) Melbourne, Australia 19/02/2008 1:59:10 PM |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation