shebang launcher for D programs

[Anders F Björklund]

Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:

>> So I think it's fair to have the rdmd program default to using dmd/gdmd,
>> even if bud/rebuild do exist as an optional (and recommended) D add-on ?
> 
> Well fair of course it is, it's IMHO just not enough. I strongly believe 
> that an rdmd that automatically figures out dependencies must be part of 
> the standard D distribution.

Seeing as how rebuild is based on the DMD sources, I don't think this is
impossible. But if it complicates the release of the compilers, it might 
as well be stand-alone ? As in: installing Bud or Rebuild separately...

In the end it is up to Walter if he wants to include the functionality 
in the regular DMD compiler or leave it as a "third-party opportunity" ?
The pragmatic approach is rdmd in the main, and bud/rebuild as add-ons.

>> Currently this can be done by recompiling rdmd... (assuming here that
>> the rdmd source code eventually gets included in the DMD distribution)
>>
>> Maybe it could even use a configuration file for those two options.
>> (i.e. a simple INI file for overriding --compiler and --tmpdir ?)
> 
> If you make the code open source, I'd be glad to hack into it to make it 
> do the deed without relying on any other tool.

The code is public domain, but if it's not included it can be somewhat
hard to find... It was released on the digitalmars.D.announce newsgroup:

rdmd 1.0 (DMD/linux) digitalmars.D.announce:2668, 13 Feb 2006
rdmd 1.1 (DMD/Windows) digitalmars.D.announce:2673, 14 Feb 2006

As far as I can tell it (rdmd binaries) was introduced with DMD 0.148 ?
I posted my modified rdmd code at http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/rdmd.d:

rdmd "1.2" (GDC/Unix) digitalmars.D.announce:8010, 21 Mar 2007

But I was only talking about changing "rdmd" so that it calls upon an 
external "bud" or "rebuild" program, as opposed to "dmd" or "gdmd"...

--anders