Compile time executable calling?
H. S. Teoh
hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx
Fri Jul 12 17:10:02 PDT 2013
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 05:00:29PM -0700, Timothee Cour wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:51 PM, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:51:03AM +0200, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> > > On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 22:36:22 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
> > > >On Friday, 12 July 2013 at 20:42:50 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> > > >>So I had an idea recently, wouldn't it be cool to have the
> > > >>ability to call an executable at compile time and capture its
> > > >>output.
> > > >
> > > >How long until D compilers are able to read mail? :-)
> > Zawinski's law of software envelopment:
> > Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those
> > programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.
> forget about reading mail, we currently don't even have hello world! (we
> have pragma(msg) but no ctfewriteln, which pragma(msg) can't do)
Why should the compiler turn into a hello world program?
> > Makefiles, for example, can't correctly recompile your program if you
> > change compiler flags. And complex interdependencies, like you said,
> > require painful manual maintenance, otherwise they tend to screw up and
> > produce inconsistent results.
> > For an example of a modern build system, see http://gittup.org/tup/.
> Using a build system would likely be non-portable (see current mess
> even in dmd source code, which requires posix.ma / win32.mak /
> win64.mak which is not DRY and hard to maintain), and suffer from the
> points I mentioned in my previous post.
Again, makefiles are a poor example of build systems. There *are* build
systems that allow you to write portable build scripts, such as SCons.
They're not perfect, but makefiles are a far cry from what they can do.
> We don't need yet another build system if we have "exec" available at
That doesn't replace a proper build system. What if your external
program itself is a D program that needs to be compiled first? What if
you need to run an external program like povray in order to generate
images (say, animation frames) that are string-imported into your
program? Should DMD have the capability of running arbitrary programs
that produce arbitrary output and be able to sort out which programs
must run first and which output should be imported into the D program?
So we're no longer talking about the D compiler, but about the D
operating system. The real "DOS". :-P Which, mind you, would be a good
thing IMO, but I think it's a bit of a stretch from where we are
> Let's put it another way: if I or someone else made a pull request for
> CTFE "exec", would it have a chance of being accepted?
I'm not one to decide, you have to convince Walter.
And I'm not saying this idea is good or bad, I'm just saying that you
can already do such things without compiler support. At this point, I'd
rather we focus on stabilizing the language and improving its
implementation, than to continue adding new features that reinvent the
For every argument for something, there is always an equal and opposite
argument against it. Debates don't give answers, only wounded or
More information about the Digitalmars-d