Thread overview
combine dlang/tools into a single (or a few) binaries
Sep 23, 2016
Timothee Cour
Sep 24, 2016
rikki cattermole
Sep 24, 2016
ketmar
Sep 24, 2016
rikki cattermole
Sep 24, 2016
ketmar
September 23, 2016
instead of having multiple binaries polluting global namespace what about combining them into:

dtools --catdoc
dtools --changed

etc

with maybe exception of a few such as rdmd

advantages:
less pollution of global namespace, smaller overall size (binaries
duplicate code), more opportunities for refactoring


September 24, 2016
On 24/09/2016 9:47 AM, Timothee Cour via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> instead of having multiple binaries polluting global namespace what
> about combining them into:
>
> dtools --catdoc
> dtools --changed
>
> etc
>
> with maybe exception of a few such as rdmd
>
> advantages:
> less pollution of global namespace, smaller overall size (binaries
> duplicate code), more opportunities for refactoring

I'd suggest dlangtools instead.
After all, dtools sounds like something that could be used by other projects.
September 24, 2016
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 at 04:54:51 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> I'd suggest dlangtools instead.
exactly the thing virtually nobody will type even with autocompletion.
September 24, 2016
On 24/09/2016 5:11 PM, ketmar wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 September 2016 at 04:54:51 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>> I'd suggest dlangtools instead.
> exactly the thing virtually nobody will type even with autocompletion.

Bingo! No reason for us to invite name conflicts.
September 24, 2016
On Saturday, 24 September 2016 at 05:19:39 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> On 24/09/2016 5:11 PM, ketmar wrote:
>> On Saturday, 24 September 2016 at 04:54:51 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>>> I'd suggest dlangtools instead.
>> exactly the thing virtually nobody will type even with autocompletion.
>
> Bingo! No reason for us to invite name conflicts.

i bet someone already has dlangtools executable. i suggest NaIswgm0Z7A3YmK.