i've noticed code like this:

version (foo)
{}
else
{
	do something...
}

would it be more natural to be able to write:

version (!foo)
{
	do something...
}

the same applies to the debug statement. thanks

maxter wrote:

> i've noticed code like this:
> 
> version (foo)
> {}
> else
> {
> 	do something...
> }

Usually written as:
version (foo) {} else
{
     ....
}

> would it be more natural to be able to write:
> 
> version (!foo)
> {
> 	do something...				
> } 
> 
> the same applies to the debug statement. thanks

Yes it would, and Thomas patched this in bug #2522
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2522

But I don't think that they ever caught on with W.
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/11946
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/11995

--anders

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> maxter wrote:
> 
>> i've noticed code like this:
>>
>> version (foo)
>> {}
>> else
>> {
>>     do something...
>> }
> 
> Usually written as:
> version (foo) {} else
> {
>      ....
> }
> 

Yeah, I've had to do that a few times myself; very annoying.

>> would it be more natural to be able to write:
>>
>> version (!foo)
>> {
>>     do something...
>> }
>> the same applies to the debug statement. thanks
> 
> Yes it would, and Thomas patched this in bug #2522 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2522
> 
> But I don't think that they ever caught on with W. http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/11946 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/11995
> 
> --anders

That's odd, given that D is more or less designed to avoid silly hacks like this...

	-- Daniel

-- 

v1sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP    http://hackerkey.com/

Daniel Keep wrote:

>> version (foo) {} else
>> {
>>      ....
>> }

> That's odd, given that D is more or less designed to avoid silly hacks
> like this...

Both D and W seem to be more open to suggestions now,
so maybe it will be added in a future DMD version yet ?

I'm still naively hoping for both of "version (Unix)"
and "version (!Windows)" to be defined and legal in D.

--anders

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
>>> version (foo) {} else
>>> {
>>>      ....
>>> }
> 
>> That's odd, given that D is more or less designed to avoid silly hacks like this...
> 
> Both D and W seem to be more open to suggestions now,
> so maybe it will be added in a future DMD version yet ?
> 
> I'm still naively hoping for both of "version (Unix)"
> and "version (!Windows)" to be defined and legal in D.
> 
> --anders

Well, I'll continue to hope that at some point it grows boolean expressions in version statements like "version(BSD | Linux)", but I can live without those :)

	-- Daniel

-- 

v1sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP    http://hackerkey.com/

Daniel Keep wrote:

> Well, I'll continue to hope that at some point it grows boolean
> expressions in version statements like "version(BSD | Linux)", but I can
> live without those :)

Yeah, those can be hacked too.

version (freebsd)
   version = freebsd_or_linux;
version (linux)
   version = freebsd_or_linux;

version (freebsd_or_linux) { ... }

--anders

PS. All platforms except Windows (and "Unix") use lowercase...
    http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocComments/Version

Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
> Anders F Björklund wrote:
>> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>
>>>> version (foo) {} else
>>>> {
>>>>      ....
>>>> }
>>> That's odd, given that D is more or less designed to avoid silly hacks
>>> like this...
>> Both D and W seem to be more open to suggestions now,
>> so maybe it will be added in a future DMD version yet ?
>>
>> I'm still naively hoping for both of "version (Unix)"
>> and "version (!Windows)" to be defined and legal in D.
>>
>> --anders
> 
> Well, I'll continue to hope that at some point it grows boolean
> expressions in version statements like "version(BSD | Linux)", but I can
> live without those :)
> 
> 	-- Daniel

Since "static if" is now legal at module scope, it's now practically a superset of "version". So it shouldn't be very complicated to move some of the functionality across. (There's a problem with using 'static if' instead of 'version' : if there's an 'import' statement bracketed by a static if, potentially you have to compile the program to find out which files are included. Obviously 'build' can't cope with that).

"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e3ul8t$ag8$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>
>
> Anders F Björklund wrote:
>> maxter wrote:
>>
>>> i've noticed code like this:
>>>
>>> version (foo)
>>> {}
>>> else
>>> {
>>>     do something...
>>> }
>>
>> Usually written as:
>> version (foo) {} else
>> {
>>      ....
>> }
>>
>
> Yeah, I've had to do that a few times myself; very annoying.
>
>>> would it be more natural to be able to write:
>>>
>>> version (!foo)
>>> {
>>>     do something...
>>> }
>>> the same applies to the debug statement. thanks
>>
>> Yes it would, and Thomas patched this in bug #2522 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2522
>>
>> But I don't think that they ever caught on with W. http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/11946 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/11995
>>
>> --anders
>
> That's odd, given that D is more or less designed to avoid silly hacks like this...
I agree.  Having to define an empty version block is most definitely inefficient and doesn't support code readability.
>
> -- Daniel
>
> -- 
>
> v1sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP    http://hackerkey.com/

On Thu, 11 May 2006 19:32:07 +1000, Don Clugston <dac@nospam.com.au> wrote:


> Since "static if" is now legal at module scope, it's now practically a superset of "version". So it shouldn't be very complicated to move some of the functionality across. (There's a problem with using 'static if' instead of 'version' : if there's an 'import' statement bracketed by a static if, potentially you have to compile the program to find out which files are included. Obviously 'build' can't cope with that).

And I don't want to make Build be a compiler too ;-) So I don't think it will ever try to execute static if statements.


-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

In article <op.s9d3gilp6b8z09@ginger>, Derek Parnell says...
>
>On Thu, 11 May 2006 19:32:07 +1000, Don Clugston <dac@nospam.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>> Since "static if" is now legal at module scope, it's now practically a superset of "version". So it shouldn't be very complicated to move some of the functionality across. (There's a problem with using 'static if' instead of 'version' : if there's an 'import' statement bracketed by a static if, potentially you have to compile the program to find out which files are included. Obviously 'build' can't cope with that).
>
>And I don't want to make Build be a compiler too ;-) So I don't think it will ever try to execute static if statements.

I'll second that.

Its also bad enough that any ddoc processing tool has to navigate version statement on top of comments and declarations.  Adding the complexity of static if() would *really* overcomplicate things.

- EricAnderton at yahoo