On Friday, 16 May 2014 at 09:44:11 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> John Colvin:
>
>> Any plans to get any preprocessor stuff working?
>
> Do you mean in D?
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

i think he means in dstep.

On 16/05/14 11:19, John Colvin wrote:

> Any plans to get any preprocessor stuff working? Presumably libclang can
> make this feasible.

Yes, eventually. Although, currently libclang doesn't really provide an API for the preprocessor, so that needs to be added.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 22:25:47 UTC, Tom Browder via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> I am a volunteer developer with the well-known 3D CAD FOSS project BRL-CAD:
>
>   http://brlcad.org
>
> I have wanted to use D for a long time but I hadn't taken the plunge.
> Yesterday I advertised to the BRL-CAD community my new project to
> attempt to create D bindings for BRL-CAD's C libraries, and I created
> a branch for the project.
>
> I have been looking for specific information on creating D bindings
> from C headers for which there seems to be sufficient information
> available, but I would appreciate recommendations as to the best
> method.  I have successfully built my first pure D program but now
> need to test the feasibility of my project.
>
> What I have not seen yet is the exact way to build a D program which
> uses D bindings and its matching C library.  I have just created a
> Cookbook page on the D Wiki where I show my first attempt for a real
> GNU Makefile as an example for the project.  The page link is here:
>
>   http://wiki.dlang.org/Using_C_libraries_for_a_D_program
>
> I would appreciate it if an experienced D user would correct that
> recipe so it should compile the desired binary source correctly
> (assuming no errors in the  input files).
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Best regards,
>
> -Tom

For a start use dub to build D projects, it's becoming the de-facto build tool.

http://code.dlang.org/

Then take a look at one of my projects in which i've ported C headers to D.

https://github.com/nomad-software/tcltk

In that repo i've included all the C headers as well as their D counterparts for reference. Converting headers is not straightforward when you first start but once you understand the rules it gets easier. Here's some helpful links:

http://dlang.org/interfaceToC.html
http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/game-programming/binding-d-to-c-r3122
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/qvjjzoxoufxnxzokywgq@forum.dlang.org
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/wmzqweodmbpkfjbvevcc@forum.dlang.org
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/fzqloumcqbdvnccvacpi@forum.dlang.org

Once the D file is created and imported into your program you just need to link the necessary library and you're good to go. See the `package.json` file in the above repository for how i do it for Posix and Windows. Windows DLL's are supplied in the `dist` directory.

On Friday, 16 May 2014 at 10:10:17 UTC, Tom Browder via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion, Frank, but I don't do windows.

Monodevelop (open source C# dev platform) has a plugin for D by
Alexander Bothe called Mono-D which is absolutely fantastic and
integrates okay with dub too. There is also an emacs major mode
for d (d-mode) which gives basic highlighting and indentation
too. I use both all of these tools on my Arch linux set up and
they work very well, and Mono-D has some debugging support too.
Best of luck spreading D Tom! You're doing the lord's work son.

Alex

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Alex Herrmann via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 16 May 2014 at 10:10:17 UTC, Tom Browder via
...
>> Thanks for the suggestion, Frank, but I don't do windows.
...
> Monodevelop (open source C# dev platform) has a plugin for D by
...

Thanks for the suggestions, Alex,

...
> Best of luck spreading D Tom! You're doing the lord's work son.

I don't know if it's the Lord's work or not, but I do think D is the better C++ for lots of us (with profuse thanks to Bjarne Stroustrup for C++).

Best regards,

-Tom

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 22:25:47 UTC, Tom Browder via
..
>> What I have not seen yet is the exact way to build a D program which uses D bindings and its matching C library.  I have just created a
...
> For a start use dub to build D projects, it's becoming the de-facto build tool.
...

Thanks for all the help, Gary.

Wow, you have been very busy--quite a record to strive for!

Best regards,

-Tom

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote: ...
> Then take a look at one of my projects in which i've ported C headers to D.
>
> https://github.com/nomad-software/tcltk

I notice your binding source files have a ".d" suffix.  Is that the preferred convention?  I'm asking because I saw ".di" used on several D Wiki pages.

Best,

-Tom

On Friday, 16 May 2014 at 19:05:25 UTC, Tom Browder via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Gary Willoughby via
> Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Then take a look at one of my projects in which i've ported C headers to D.
>>
>> https://github.com/nomad-software/tcltk
>
> I notice your binding source files have a ".d" suffix.  Is that the
> preferred convention?  I'm asking because I saw ".di" used on several
> D Wiki pages.
>
> Best,
>
> -Tom

Using .di is more idiomatic as those are supposed to denote declaration-only interface files (with no implementation). In practice it makes almost no difference though so many people use plain .d by habit.

On Friday, 16 May 2014 at 19:17:05 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Friday, 16 May 2014 at 19:05:25 UTC, Tom Browder via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Gary Willoughby via
>> Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> Then take a look at one of my projects in which i've ported C headers to D.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/nomad-software/tcltk
>>
>> I notice your binding source files have a ".d" suffix.  Is that the
>> preferred convention?  I'm asking because I saw ".di" used on several
>> D Wiki pages.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -Tom
>
> Using .di is more idiomatic as those are supposed to denote declaration-only interface files (with no implementation). In practice it makes almost no difference though so many people use plain .d by habit.

That's right. I always use .d files when porting C headers because i just see them as regular D code. I like to classify .di files as D 'headers' generated from pure D libraries (using the -H compiler switch). That's just my opinion though and to be honest i don't think it matters. :)

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 16 May 2014 at 19:17:05 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> Using .di is more idiomatic as those are supposed to denote declaration-only interface files (with no implementation). In practice it makes almost no difference though so many people use plain .d by habit.
...
> That's right. I always use .d files when porting C headers because i just see them as regular D code. I like to classify .di files as D 'headers' generated from pure D libraries (using the -H compiler switch). That's just my opinion though and to be honest i don't think it matters. :)

Okay, Dicebot and Gary, that makes good sense I think, thanks.

So I should use the ".d" for the binding source files since there will almost certainly be implementation code in them.

Best,

-Tom