Beta release DUB 1.0.0-beta.1

[Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Rory McGuire <rjmcguire at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Steven Schveighoffer via
> Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 6/9/16 4:37 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 09.06.2016 um 15:06 schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/8/16 2:45 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>>>> (...)
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from what I've already mentioned in my first reply to Jacob, I
>>>>> think there is nothing else that couldn't be solved in either case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "It's still possible to put something else in front of it"
>>>>
>>>> I didn't get this. How is /+ different from /*? I thought the only issue
>>>> was the nesting.
>>>
>>>
>>> I mean together with the restriction that it has to be the first /+ +/
>>> comment, it is possible to put // and /* style comments in front of it
>>> without interference.
>>
>>
>> Oh, didn't see that aspect. I'll answer this with your last point.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Okay, so at least 3 people favor supporting other comment styles, while
>>>>> I'm not convinced that supporting all comment styles is necessarily
>>>>> better, I wouldn't mind pulling an update. The relevant code section is
>>>>> here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/dlang/dub/blob/b02c18991b0cb4627eb0c943efd6ca3e69192751/source/dub/dub.d#L288
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. Perhaps more debate is fruitless until someone steps up with an
>>>> implementation :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Rory has started an implementation: https://github.com/dlang/dub/pull/872
>>>
>>> But this has brought up another issue. The idea was to allow the recipe
>>> comment to be anywhere in the file and be of any comment style. However,
>>> that basically almost requires a full D lexer (at least string literals
>>> need to be parsed in addition to the comment styles).
>>>
>>> I'm reluctant to include this in the current state, because the results
>>> for a program such as the following will be very confusing:
>>>
>>>     bool foo(string str)
>>>     {
>>>         return str.startsWith("/*");
>>>     }
>>>
>>>     /* dub.sdl: ... */
>>>     void main()
>>>     {
>>>     }
>>>
>>> The string literal will be recognized as the start of a comment and thus
>>> the real comment below will not be recognized. So I think we should
>>> either have a generic and correct version, or one that is restricted
>>> similar to the current one to sidestep such issues.
>>
>>
>> I think the idea to include it anywhere in the file is not worth the
>> trouble. I also wouldn't want to scroll through an entire file for such a
>> thing.
>>
>> But it also brings up the point, what if the first /+ comes after:
>>
>> return str.startsWith("/+");
>>
>>>
>>>>> 1.0.0-rc.1 is scheduled for Monday morning, so it should ready by then
>>>>> to avoid stretching the release schedule (it's technically a breaking
>>>>> change!).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How would this be a breaking change? It seems an additive feature, and
>>>> I'm not sure it's required to be there before the first 1.0 release.
>>>
>>>
>>> There could be a /* */ comment before the /+ dub.*: +/ one, which is now
>>> not considered as a recipe comment candidate. Depending on its contents,
>>> the behavior could change once /* */ is also recognized. However, that
>>> case would be easily detectable and a warning could be emitted instead,
>>> while falling back to the old behavior. So it's not really an issue
>>> after all.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, comments are not hard to parse, if they are the first thing you are
>> expecting.
>>
>> I would say it doesn't have to be the first comment, but it has to be one of
>> the first things in the file. You can simply throw away other comments.
>>
>> You may want to just tell the user: look, this isn't perfect, it's not a D
>> parser. Expect reasonable results for reasonable situations :) If you have a
>> line of code that looks like it could match the sdl file, then put the true
>> sdl file above it.
>>
>> -Steve
>
>
>
> Could we not just make it a requirement that if the file starts with
> #!... on the first line then the second line _must_ be a comment with
> the dub file definition?
>
> It will be frustrating to try find the dub definition if its not near
> the top and if the definition starts to be complicated so that you
> can't see the copyright or whatever would usually be in the first
> comment then you probably shouldn't be using a single file dub project
> anyway.
>
> If that is released with dub 1.0 then the restriction can always be
> loosened up if there is enough demand.

I made a version that ignores comment like characters in strings.
I've also made a version that requires the recipe to be on the second line.

Both are in my fork of dub. I can fix my pull request to which ever
one you guys prefer.

The one that handles recipe anywhere has a flaw where it will still
recognize a dub recipe even
if the recipe is inside a nested comment (one would expect that to be
commented out.

The one that handles recipe on second line only passes the following unittest:
unittest {
// first line must be #!
assertThrown!Exception(SingleFilePackage("/* dub.json: {} */void main(){}"));
// missing dub recipe
assertThrown!Exception(SingleFilePackage("#!/asdf\n/* dub: {} */void
main(){}"));
// single file package must contain code
assertThrown!Exception(SingleFilePackage("#!/asdf\n/* dub.sdl: */"));
// documentation style comments not supported for dub recipe comment
assertThrown!Exception(SingleFilePackage("#!/asdf\n/** dub.json: {}
*/void main(){}"));
// documentation style comments not supported for dub recipe comment
assertThrown!Exception(SingleFilePackage("#!/asdf\n/++ dub.json: {}
+/void main(){}"));
// unclosed dub recipe comment
assertThrown!Exception(SingleFilePackage("#!/asdf\n/* dub.json: {} *
/void main(){}"));

assertNotThrown!Exception(SingleFilePackage("#!/asdf\n/* dub.sdl:
{name:\"*\"} */void main(){}"));
assertNotThrown!Exception(SingleFilePackage("#!/asdf\n/+ dub.json: /*
some sdl comment */ +/void main(){}"));
assertNotThrown!Exception(SingleFilePackage("#!/asdf\n/* dub.json: {}
*/void main(){}"));
assertNotThrown!Exception(SingleFilePackage("#!/asdf\n/* dub.sdl: {}
*/void main(){}"));
}