The code I am playing with generated by DStep involves lots of lots of structs with mixin bitfields. All of them seem to compile file, except one. How is it that:

    mixin(bitfields!(
        ubyte, "current_next", 1,
        ubyte, "version", 5,
        ubyte, "one2", 2)); /* TS ID */

can result in the following error. The line for "version" is 141 and the one for "one2" is 142.

source/libdvbv5_d/header.d-mixin-139(141): Error: no identifier for declarator `ubyte`
source/libdvbv5_d/header.d-mixin-139(141): Error: identifier or integer expected inside version(...), not `)`
source/libdvbv5_d/header.d-mixin-139(141): Error: found `@` when expecting `)`
source/libdvbv5_d/header.d-mixin-139(141): Error: no identifier for declarator `safe`
source/libdvbv5_d/header.d-mixin-139(141): Error: declaration expected, not `return`
source/libdvbv5_d/header.d-mixin-139(142): Error: no identifier for declarator `void`
source/libdvbv5_d/header.d-mixin-139(142): Error: identifier or integer expected inside version(...), not `ubyte`
source/libdvbv5_d/header.d-mixin-139(142): Error: found `v` when expecting `)`
source/libdvbv5_d/header.d-mixin-139(142): Error: declaration expected, not `)`
source/libdvbv5_d/header.d-mixin-139(142): Error: declaration expected, not `assert`
source/libdvbv5_d/header.d-mixin-139(142): Error: no identifier for declarator `_current_next_version_one2`
source/libdvbv5_d/header.d-mixin-139(142): Error: declaration expected, not `=`
source/libdvbv5_d/header.d(139): Error: incomplete mixin declaration `"private ubyte _current_next_version_one2;@property ubyte current_next() @safe pure nothrow @nogc const { auto result = (_current_next_version_one2 & 1U) >>0U; return cast(ubyte) result;}\x0a@property void current_next(ubyte v) @safe pure nothrow @nogc { assert(v >= current_next_min, \"Value is smaller than the minimum value of bitfield 'current_next'\"); assert(v <= current_next_max, \"Value is greater than the maximum value of bitfield 'current_next'\"); _current_next_version_one2 = cast(typeof(_current_next_version_one2)) ((_current_next_version_one2 & (-1-cast(typeof(_current_next_version_one2))1U)) | ((cast(typeof(_current_next_version_one2)) v << 0U) & 1U));}\x0aenum ubyte current_next_min = cast(ubyte)0U;  enum ubyte current_next_max = cast(ubyte)1U; @property ubyte version() @safe pure nothrow @nogc const { auto result = (_current_next_version_one2 & 62U) >>1U; return cast(ubyte) result;}\x0a@property void version(ubyte v) @safe pure nothrow @nogc { assert(v >= version_min, \"Value is smaller than the minimum value of bitfield 'version'\"); assert(v <= version_max, \"Value is greater than the maximum value of bitfield 'version'\"); _current_next_version_one2 = cast(typeof(_current_next_version_one2)) ((_current_next_version_one2 & (-1-cast(typeof(_current_next_version_one2))62U)) | ((cast(typeof(_current_next_version_one2)) v << 1U) & 62U));}\x0aenum ubyte version_min = cast(ubyte)0U;  enum ubyte version_max = cast(ubyte)31U; @property ubyte one2() @safe pure nothrow @nogc const { auto result = (_current_next_version_one2 & 192U) >>6U; return cast(ubyte) result;}\x0a@property void one2(ubyte v) @safe pure nothrow @nogc { assert(v >= one2_min, \"Value is smaller than the minimum value of bitfield 'one2'\"); assert(v <= one2_max, \"Value is greater than the maximum value of bitfield 'one2'\"); _current_next_version_one2 = cast(typeof(_current_next_version_one2)) ((_current_next_version_one2 & (-1-cast(typeof(_current_next_version_one2))192U)) | ((cast(typeof(_current_next_version_one2)) v << 6U) & 192U));}\x0aenum ubyte one2_min = cast(ubyte)0U;  enum ubyte one2_max = cast(ubyte)3U; "`


-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

On Wednesday, 21 March 2018 at 18:00:38 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>         ubyte, "version", 5,


version is a D keyword, so I would suggest trying "version_" there instead and see if it works. (I'm guessing btw, the error message was way to long and illegible, but this is an easy first guess anyway)

On 03/21/2018 11:00 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> The code I am playing with generated by DStep involves lots of lots of
> structs with mixin bitfields. All of them seem to compile file, except
> one. How is it that:
>
>      mixin(bitfields!(
>          ubyte, "current_next", 1,
>          ubyte, "version", 5,
>          ubyte, "one2", 2)); /* TS ID */
>
> can result in the following error. The line for "version" is 141 and
> the one for "one2" is 142.

I think it's because 'version' is a D keyword. :)

Ali

On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 18:11 +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 March 2018 at 18:00:38 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> >         ubyte, "version", 5,
> 
> 
> version is a D keyword, so I would suggest trying "version_" there instead and see if it works. (I'm guessing btw, the error message was way to long and illegible, but this is an easy first guess anyway)

On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 11:14 -0700, Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
[…]
> 
> I think it's because 'version' is a D keyword. :)
> 
> Ali
> 

Thanks to Adam and Ali, it was clear and obvious.

But :-(

Why does version have to be a keyword?

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 07:30:28PM +0000, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: [...]
> But :-(
> 
> Why does version have to be a keyword?
[...]

	version(all) { ... }
	version(none) { ... }
	version(Posix) { ... }
	version(Windows) { ... }

But yeah, using "version" for this purpose makes the very common identifier "version" unavailable for use.  I've been bitten by this multiple times.

	auto version = getVersion();	// NG
	auto ver = getVersion();	// OK

	struct PacketHeader {
		ushort version;		// NG
		ushort ver;		// OK
	}

:-(


T

-- 
Маленькие детки - маленькие бедки.

On 2018-03-21 20:30, Russel Winder wrote:

> Thanks to Adam and Ali, it was clear and obvious.

Please report and issue so it's not forgotten.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 22:18 +0100, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On 2018-03-21 20:30, Russel Winder wrote:
> 
> > Thanks to Adam and Ali, it was clear and obvious.
> 
> Please report and issue so it's not forgotten.

I am guessing you mean against DStep rather than D :-)

Though clearly T and I would prefer version not to be a D keyword.

I suspect I have seen one place where DStep has turned version into version_ where version was a variable name. In this case "version" was a string used to create a bitfield using a mixin(bitfield!(…)) construct. Is that likely easy to fix?

-- 
Russel.
==========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

On Wednesday, 21 March 2018 at 19:41:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> 	version(all) { ... }
> 	version(none) { ... }
> 	version(Posix) { ... }
> 	version(Windows) { ... }
>
> But yeah, using "version" for this purpose makes the very common identifier "version" unavailable for use.  I've been bitten by this multiple times.
>
> 	auto version = getVersion();	// NG
> 	auto ver = getVersion();	// OK
>
> 	struct PacketHeader {
> 		ushort version;		// NG
> 		ushort ver;		// OK
> 	}

C code also uses `in`, `out` and `with` as identifiers.

I think, with some funny escape sequences we can do without any keyword at all:
	\1(all) { ... }
	\1(none) { ... }
	\1(Posix) { ... }
	\1(Windows) { ... }
	\5 version = getVersion();
	\2 PacketHeader {
		\6 version;
	}

On Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 09:55:44 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

> I am guessing you mean against DStep rather than D :-)

Yes :)

> Though clearly T and I would prefer version not to be a D keyword.
>
> I suspect I have seen one place where DStep has turned version into version_ where version was a variable name. In this case "version" was a string used to create a bitfield using a mixin(bitfield!(…)) construct. Is that likely easy to fix?

Yes. It's not a string literal in the C code. The identifier should be renamed before it's added to the call to "bitfield".

--
/Jacob Carlborg