"Marius S." <mars@centras.lt> wrote in message news:3CF8DBB3.9010505@centras.lt...

> > Installation into the root is old school and is annoying.  Programs are supposed to install into the Program Files folder by default.
>
> windows isn't THE ONLY operating system... IMHO

It'll be /usr/bin, then =)

But It's easy to back-path, so I don't see a problem there.they should be
written with
cd.. (or whatever the OS uses), to back work out the most likely place of
things.

ie sample
C:\<whatever>\DMD\samples\d
Would go something like,
..\..\bin\dmd <other>

In other words use ralative pathing not direct pathing.

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ad9rpr$1m4f$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Environment variables are old school.
>
> Mine's installed in C:\DMD\src\phobos, because that's where the few D samples' script seemed to want to look for it.
>
> Installation into the root is old school and is annoying.  Programs are supposed to install into the Program Files folder by default.
>
> Sean
>
> > It's not necessary such, by the way. Mine version is
> > E:\Language\DMD\src\phobos =)
> > Maybe a config file, or an environment variable?
>
>
>

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ad9rpr$1m4f$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Installation into the root is old school and is annoying.  Programs are supposed to install into the Program Files folder by default.

Us command line curmudgeons don't like directories with spaces in them (you have to put "" around the arguments, making it more difficult to touch-type). In any case, hardcoded paths are usually a bad idea because people do have different preferences as to where it should be installed.

Don't troll.  The Win32 version of DMD is a Windows program and should behave as other Windows programs do.  I could care less what the future Linux version of DMD does.  It'll probably use lots of command line switches and environment variables, because that seems to be the UNIX way of doing things.  On Windows, the docs should be in .CHM format, on Linux, docs will likely be in MAN format or maybe just a textfile.  Mac versions of DMD will be different still.

Sean

"Marius S." <mars@centras.lt> wrote in message news:3CF8DBB3.9010505@centras.lt...
> Sean L. Palmer wrote:
> > Environment variables are old school.
> >
> > Mine's installed in C:\DMD\src\phobos, because that's where the few D samples' script seemed to want to look for it.
> >
> > Installation into the root is old school and is annoying.  Programs are supposed to install into the Program Files folder by default.
>
> windows isn't THE ONLY operating system... IMHO

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:adb2ha$11qt$3@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ad9rpr$1m4f$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Installation into the root is old school and is annoying.  Programs are supposed to install into the Program Files folder by default.
>
> Us command line curmudgeons don't like directories with spaces in them
(you
> have to put "" around the arguments, making it more difficult to touch-type).

I understand.  I used to be a big CLI person myself back in the DOS days maybe 5 or 6 years ago.  I just don't find it productive anymore.

I actually curse Microsoft for making all the basic folders have such long unwieldy names.  (Program Files,   Documents And Settings, My Pictures, cmon give me a break I just want Programs, Documents, Pictures.  In fact I'd rather have Prog, Doc, and Pic.  Most concepts can be expressed by one word if you choose the word carefully.)

> In any case, hardcoded paths are usually a bad idea because
> people do have different preferences as to where it should be installed.

I said "by default"... the installer is supposed to ask you where to put it. Then it sets up all the nasty environment variables or registry entries for you.  Ideally the program wouldn't require any and it would

(A) ask the operating system where it is located (location of DMD.EXE)
(B) attempt to search that general area for its configuration file
(..\CONFIG\CONFIG.INI or whatever)
(C) if it can't find a config file, use some default relative paths and/or
complain that the user needs to make a config file.
(D) get the paths out of that config file.

Sean

"anderson" <anderson@firestar.com.au> wrote in message news:adak9k$j77$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> But It's easy to back-path, so I don't see a problem there.they should be
> written with
> cd.. (or whatever the OS uses), to back work out the most likely place of
> things.
>
> ie sample
> C:\<whatever>\DMD\samples\d
> Would go something like,
> ..\..\bin\dmd <other>
>
> In other words use ralative pathing not direct pathing.

This won't work as is, because I could run dmd even from another disk...
but the path could be relative to the location of dmd.exe, which can
be determined by GetModulePath on Windows.

I understand that, I was trying to present a general case. I was talking in regards to the "samples" included that are generally installed at that location in the hierarchy. And I'll defiantly need some more work.

But your probably right, It may only work on my machine.


"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:adcfnj$2gh3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "anderson" <anderson@firestar.com.au> wrote in message news:adak9k$j77$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > But It's easy to back-path, so I don't see a problem there.they should
be
> > written with
> > cd.. (or whatever the OS uses), to back work out the most likely place
of
> > things.
> >
> > ie sample
> > C:\<whatever>\DMD\samples\d
> > Would go something like,
> > ..\..\bin\dmd <other>
> >
> > In other words use ralative pathing not direct pathing.
>
> This won't work as is, because I could run dmd even from another disk...
> but the path could be relative to the location of dmd.exe, which can
> be determined by GetModulePath on Windows.
>
>

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:adbgf6$1gc3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Don't troll.  The Win32 version of DMD is a Windows program and should behave as other Windows programs do.  I could care less what the future Linux version of DMD does.  It'll probably use lots of command line
switches
> and environment variables, because that seems to be the UNIX way of doing things.  On Windows, the docs should be in .CHM format, on Linux, docs
will
> likely be in MAN format or maybe just a textfile.  Mac versions of DMD
will
> be different still.

I agree with you that things should be customized to work as expected on the particular machine it is implemented on. But I disagree about documentation. I find that html is a great way to do documentation, and it works well on win32. Just typing in the name of the file will bring it up all nicely formatted in a browser window. It enables the online documents to be identical (saves on maintenance costs). It's much better than windows help is.

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:adbgv0$1gqm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I understand.  I used to be a big CLI person myself back in the DOS days maybe 5 or 6 years ago.  I just don't find it productive anymore.

I've occaisionally tried to use guis, but the lack of a history buffer makes it slow for me.


> I actually curse Microsoft for making all the basic folders have such long unwieldy names.  (Program Files,   Documents And Settings, My Pictures,
cmon
> give me a break I just want Programs, Documents, Pictures.  In fact I'd rather have Prog, Doc, and Pic.  Most concepts can be expressed by one
word
> if you choose the word carefully.)

Yes, that stuff is really annoying. Just try and find what directory XP puts the email files in. It's so unwieldy (and uses hidden directories) I wrote a .bat file just to cd to it.


> I said "by default"... the installer is supposed to ask you where to put
it.
> Then it sets up all the nasty environment variables or registry entries
for
> you.  Ideally the program wouldn't require any and it would
> (A) ask the operating system where it is located (location of DMD.EXE)
> (B) attempt to search that general area for its configuration file
> (..\CONFIG\CONFIG.INI or whatever)
> (C) if it can't find a config file, use some default relative paths and/or
> complain that the user needs to make a config file.
> (D) get the paths out of that config file.

That's what the C/C++ compiler does, and DMD does it now, too. No need at all for registry settings.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:adg4ej$1o24$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I agree with you that things should be customized to work as expected on
the
> particular machine it is implemented on. But I disagree about
documentation.
> I find that html is a great way to do documentation, and it works well on win32.

I like HTML documentation too, and I normally use Doxygen to make it. It is a great tool that also allows the documentation to be generated in e.g. Latex, CHM, RTF, and XML, thereby reducing maintenance cost even further. Latex and RTF are good for printed documentation, while HTML is not. XML is good for further processing. For these reasons, I prefer the Doxygen (or JavaDoc) approach for documentation.

Regards,
Martin M. Pedersen