On 2013-12-06 19:35, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

> I guess libtooling (http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LibTooling.html) would
> be a better fit for a codegenerator, but it's a C++ library.

What would be better is to use the Clang C++ libraries since they already provide all the functionality needed. Although they are not stable and are C++ libraries. I'm actually quite satisfied I've come this far without needing to change a single thing in libclang itself.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

If DStep is the prefered solution would it be possible to also
provide a pre compiled binary for windows? This would make DStep
more user friendly.

=> Just trying to find out what is needed to compile DStep on a
windows machine, whether I need mambo/tango/s.th. else and
praying libclang is available for MS Windows... :)

Kind regards
André

On 2013-12-07 18:53, Andre wrote:
> If DStep is the prefered solution would it be possible to also
> provide a pre compiled binary for windows? This would make DStep
> more user friendly.
>
> => Just trying to find out what is needed to compile DStep on a
> windows machine, whether I need mambo/tango/s.th. else and
> praying libclang is available for MS Windows... :)

To build DStep you need Tango, a couple of my libraries (mambo, dstack) and libclang. I plan to make it available through Dub.

libclang is available for Windows. They provide experimental binaries for MinGW for version 3.1 and 3.2. I have already tried to build it on Windows, unfortunately it fails to pass the DStep tests. I think it was a segfault or similar. I haven't investigated any further.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Sunday, 8 December 2013 at 17:25:44 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> To build DStep you need Tango, a couple of my libraries (mambo, dstack) and libclang. I plan to make it available through Dub.

How is that going?

On 2013-12-09 10:15, John Colvin wrote:

> How is that going?

I just haven't done it yet. I don't think it should be any problems. Although I'm not too happy I need to put my two utility libraries in Dub. They're not ready for that yet.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Monday, 9 December 2013 at 15:33:22 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-12-09 10:15, John Colvin wrote:
>
>> How is that going?
>
> I just haven't done it yet. I don't think it should be any problems. Although I'm not too happy I need to put my two utility libraries in Dub. They're not ready for that yet.

Could you not use one of the pre/post build options to pull in the necessary github zip files? It's a bit of a hack but i think it could work.

Then again, you could just add a -alpha suffix to the package names or similar to be absolutely clear they aren't polished products.

On 2013-12-09 17:34, John Colvin wrote:

> Could you not use one of the pre/post build options to pull in the
> necessary github zip files? It's a bit of a hack but i think it could work.
>
> Then again, you could just add a -alpha suffix to the package names or
> similar to be absolutely clear they aren't polished products.

Yeah, I was think doing something like that. I just haven't had the time yet.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-12-09 10:15, John Colvin wrote:

> How is that going?

I just hit some issues with Dub. I'm considering it a blocker, hopefully there will be a solution:

http://forum.rejectedsoftware.com/groups/rejectedsoftware.dub/thread/652/

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg