Can we replace phobos' and tools' Makefile with D with following advantages:

* no more 3 distinct files (posix.mak,win32.mak,win64.mak), instead use version() to maximize code reuse.

* less verbosity / bugs / forward compatibility issues eg when a module is added/renamed: eg could take advantage of D's capabilities to iterate over modules / files instead of explicitly listing them, which is fragile.

The D file could actually use some modules in phobos, so long it doesn't use libphobos.a.

The other Makefiles (druntime and dmd) are of course trickier since it'd require boosstrapping.

In my experience writing D based makefiles is very easy, short and clean.

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 00:18:41 timotheecour wrote:
> Can we replace phobos' and tools' Makefile with D with following advantages:
> 
> * no more 3 distinct files (posix.mak,win32.mak,win64.mak),
> instead use version() to maximize code reuse.
> 
> * less verbosity / bugs / forward compatibility issues eg when a module is added/renamed: eg could take advantage of D's capabilities to iterate over modules / files instead of explicitly listing them, which is fragile.
> 
> The D file could actually use some modules in phobos, so long it doesn't use libphobos.a.
> 
> The other Makefiles (druntime and dmd) are of course trickier
> since it'd require boosstrapping.
> 
> In my experience writing D based makefiles is very easy, short and clean.

Even this were deemed a good idea, d-learn is not the correct list to discuss this on.

- Jonathan M Davis

> Even this were deemed a good idea, d-learn is not the correct list to discuss this on.

Ok, I moved it to :
http://forum.dlang.org/post/zmjjfjdsnlscejsmbuec@forum.dlang.org