version()

[Manu]

On 16 January 2012 02:35, Zachary Lund <admin at computerquip.com> wrote:

> On 01/15/2012 06:16 PM, Manu wrote:
>
>> On 16 January 2012 02:08, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com
>> <mailto:jmdavisProg at gmx.com>> wrote:
>>
>>    On Monday, January 16, 2012 01:44:56 Manu wrote:
>>     > Surely basic logical expressions within a version seem not only
>>    logical,
>>     > but also very necessary?
>>     > There must be a reason this is impossible, or else I can't
>>    believe it's not
>>     > already like that...
>>
>>    People have requested it. Walter is against it. I don't remember his
>>    exact
>>    arguments, but he believes that it leads to worse code if you allow it.
>>
>>
>> Insanity, I argue the exact opposite. My code is WORSE for those 9
>> completely useless lines. Any sane person would look at that and wonder
>> WTF... especially someone new to the language.
>> Imagine my expression was something more complex: version( A || (B && C)
>> ) ... the munging code would double in size.
>>
>>    As for
>>
>>    version(linux || OSX)
>>
>>    you can use
>>
>>    version(Posix)
>>
>>    It'll include FreeBSD as well, but then again, if something is
>>    common to both
>>    linux and OSX, then it's almost certainly in FreeBSD as well.
>>
>>
>> Fair enough, although this is just an example.
>> In my current case, linux and MinGW are the same, but FreeBSD is
>> different. You can't rely on predefined unions.
>>
>
> What exactly are you wanting so I can give an example?
>
> I think the bigger problem is version levels.
> For instance there doesn't seem to be a way to "version out" a feature.
> Although there will not be any perfect way. If a feature is at level 7, it
> will not be included with a version level set at 5.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no satisfying both sides. You can do:
>
> version = 5
>
> void main()
> {
>        int test;
>        version(3)
>        {
>                /+ Everything in here is now versioned out since version 3
> +/
>        }
> }
>
>
> or you can have the opposite of which version(3) would have been true
> which would allow for incremental versions but that would mean that
> everything would be wrapped in version statements in the first place. Thus
> I think the code example above makes more sense than what is currently in
> place and everything not wrapped in a version statement is assumed to be at
> the same version level as what is currently set.
>

I also considered this problem. You can add features, but you can't remove
them with the existing system. I just didn't complain about this... yet ;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120116/7f2ff413/attachment.html>