version()

[Manu]

On 16 January 2012 23:19, Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:

> I somewhat rarely use version anymore. I used
> to use it for different client customizations
> to my app, but you can't turn features on and
> off in a a central file like that, since the
> version= doesn't affect other modules.
>
> I switched for a while to static if like this:
>
> version(client_a)
>  enum feature_x = true;
> version(client_b)
>  enum feature_x = false;
>
>
> == other file ==
>
> static if(feature_x)
>  void feature_x_impl() {}
>
>
>
> But, now, I have a way of doing it without
> version, and it's even better.
>
>
> client_a_config.d:
> ===
> module app.config;
> enum feature_x = true;
> ===
>
> client_b_config.d:
> ===
> module app.config;
> enum feature_x = false;
> ===
>
>
> Real file:
> ===
> import app.config;
>
> static if(feature_x)
>  // implement
> ===
>
>
>
> Then, I pick the desired version just by picking
> the file on the command line.
>
>
> dmd app.d client_a_config.d # build client A's version
> dmd app.d client_b_config.d # build client B's version
>
>
>
> So, there's no version stuff in there at all... I now
> think version is *almost* useless. Could probably use
> this for operating system versions too, putting the
> common components in a shared file.
>

The fact that everyone has their own work-around, and everyone has a
DIFFERENT work around is hard evidence that version() is insufficient, and
the current design is making D code WORSE.
Even Walter describes and supports the work-arounds to use in his poses
from years ago.

I can see absolutely no evidence that performing logical expressions on
versions is not required by any cross platform applications, including
phobos! However now, instead of expressing the logic in a concise and
familiar fashion, you have to try and decode each individuals own personal
work-around scheme, at the expense of 10s of lines of really ugly
spaghetti, and for absolutely no benefit.

There is hard evidence people can't work without version logic, so why
continue to deny it?

Using '} else {' as a substitute for ! for example, you're STILL typing
'!', you're just writing it in the ugliest and least intuitive way
possible. Are people REALLY more likely to mis-read/misunderstand the '!'
in the expression than miss the obscure 'else' statement to fake the same
effect?
Using 'version(A) version(B)' as a substitute for &&... it's still &&,
except it's way longer, and it's certainly not as clear that you're really
performing a boolean &&. Why not just write what it is?
And ||, the MOST common operation to want to perform... let's not mention
the work around, it's clearly the worst. Suffice to say, you're still
producing OR logic, but again, writing it in a really archaic fashion.

People ARE writing these logical constructs whether they use a clear
logical expressions or not... why not just let them write it between the
parentheses in a clear and concise manner, than scatter and obscure the
logic across 10 lines?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120116/14c281fe/attachment-0001.html>