DIP11: Automatic downloading of libraries

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-06-20 22:45, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 20.06.2011 23:39, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Dmitry Olshansky"<dmitry.olsh at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:itn2el$2t2v$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> On 20.06.2011 12:25, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>> On 2011-06-19 22:28, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why having name as run-time parameter? I'd expect more like (given
>>>>> there
>>>>> is Target struct or class):
>>>>> //somewhere at top
>>>>> Target cool_lib, ...;
>>>>>
>>>>> then:
>>>>> with(cool_lib) {
>>>>> flags = "-L-lz";
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd even expect special types like Executable, Library and so on.
>>>> The user shouldn't have to create the necessary object. If it does, how
>>>> would the tool get it then?
>>>>
>>> If we settle on effectively evaluating orbspec like this:
>>> //first module
>>> module orb_orange;
>>> mixin(import ("orange.orbspec"));
>>> //
>>>
>>> // builder entry point
>>> void main()
>>> {
>>> foreach(member; __traits(allMembers, orb_orange))
>>> {
>>> static if(typeof(member) == Target){
>>> //do necessary actions, sort out priority and construct a
>>> worklist
>>> }
>>> else //static if (...) //...could be others I mentioned
>>> {
>>> }
>>> }
>>> //all the work goes there
>>> }
>>>
>>> Should be straightforward? Alternatively with local imports we can
>>> pack it
>>> in a struct instead of separate module, though errors in script would be
>>> harder to report (but at least static constructors would be
>>> controlled!).
>>> More adequatly would be, of course, to pump it to dmd from stdin...
>>>
>> Target would be part of Orb. Why not just make Target's ctor register
>> itself
>> with the rest of Orb?
>>
>>
> Nice thinking, but default constructors for structs?
> Of course, it could be a class... Then probably there could be usefull
> derived things like these Executable, Library, etc.

I really don't like that the users needs to create the targets. The good 
thing about Ruby is that the user can just call a function and pass a 
block to the function. Then the tool can evaluate the block in the 
context of an instance. The user would never have to care about instances.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg