• Damon Gray (12/12) Jan 05 2004 I'm probably missing something obvious. But I've read through the docume...
• Matthew (13/25) Jan 05 2004 Just strip out the function definitions, leaving the declarations in the...
• J Anderson (7/11) Jan 05 2004 Me to, if not in the compiler, a tool that comes with the compiler. The...
• Matthew (6/19) Jan 06 2004 there.
• J Anderson (8/41) Jan 06 2004 I suppose the advantage of having it in the compiler is that you would
• J C Calvarese (10/29) Jan 06 2004 It doesn't quite work these days, but strip.d in dig tries to strip D
• Marco A (3/33) Jan 06 2004 the Eiffel folks have a utility called "short" that does this type of th...
• Andy Friesen (10/25) Jan 05 2004 You just need to remove the function bodies in the source, and

Damon Gray <Damon_member pathlink.com> writes:

I'm probably missing something obvious. But I've read through the documentation
and I can't understand how you would distribute a binary library for a D module
without giving out it's source. For example, lets say I wanted to release a
module  that does some nifty text manipulations, lets call it module text.nifty;
and the file is nifty.d. I compile this and want to create a libnifty.a. So I do
that. Then it seems to me if I want anyone to be able to use libnifty in their
project I have to also give them nifty.d source file.

Is this correct?

Maybe I just can't get past my C eyes. :) To do this with C I would make the
library and send it out with a .h file and they would get the definitions from
that.

Thanks for helping this new D explorer.

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

Just strip out the function definitions, leaving the declarations in there.

This is something I'm hoping we can oblige Walter to include in the
compiler, so if you add your voice to the heaving masses ...

"Damon Gray" <Damon_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:btcrqu$14du$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm probably missing something obvious. But I've read through the

documentation
 and I can't understand how you would distribute a binary library for a D

module
 without giving out it's source. For example, lets say I wanted to release

a
 module  that does some nifty text manipulations, lets call it module

text.nifty;
 and the file is nifty.d. I compile this and want to create a libnifty.a.

So I do
 that. Then it seems to me if I want anyone to be able to use libnifty in

their
 project I have to also give them nifty.d source file.

 Is this correct?

 Maybe I just can't get past my C eyes. :) To do this with C I would make

the
 library and send it out with a .h file and they would get the definitions

from
 that.

 Thanks for helping this new D explorer.

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

Matthew wrote:

Just strip out the function definitions, leaving the declarations in there.

This is something I'm hoping we can oblige Walter to include in the
compiler, so if you add your voice to the heaving masses ...

  

Me to, if not in the compiler, a tool that comes with the compiler.  The 
sooner the "header" format is standardised, the better the chance of it 
being used for things like intellisense in editors.

In the mean time you could use doxygen (I'm not implying that the 
declaration format standard should be anything as complex as doxygen).

Anderson

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
news:btdggh$248n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Matthew wrote:

Just strip out the function definitions, leaving the declarations in


there.
This is something I'm hoping we can oblige Walter to include in the
compiler, so if you add your voice to the heaving masses ...

 Me to, if not in the compiler, a tool that comes with the compiler.  The
 sooner the "header" format is standardised, the better the chance of it
 being used for things like intellisense in editors.

Indeed. This'd be easy to do. Someone with some time should have a go. I'm
sure Walter would give the appropriate pointers.

 In the mean time you could use doxygen (I'm not implying that the
 declaration format standard should be anything as complex as doxygen).

I always Doxygenate my libs, but it's not used for Intellisense or anything.

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

inline

Matthew wrote:

"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
news:btdggh$248n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
  

Matthew wrote:

    

Just strip out the function definitions, leaving the declarations in
      


there.
  

This is something I'm hoping we can oblige Walter to include in the
compiler, so if you add your voice to the heaving masses ...



      

Me to, if not in the compiler, a tool that comes with the compiler.  The
sooner the "header" format is standardised, the better the chance of it
being used for things like intellisense in editors.
    

Indeed. This'd be easy to do. Someone with some time should have a go. I'm
sure Walter would give the appropriate pointers.

  

I suppose the advantage of having it in the compiler is that you would 
need to pharse the code less and it would be update tollerent.

In the mean time you could use doxygen (I'm not implying that the
declaration format standard should be anything as complex as doxygen).
    

I always Doxygenate my libs, but it's not used for Intellisense or anything.

  

Actually this part was meant for Damon (I forgot to say that). I know 
you use doxygen.  Personally for something like intellisense, appart 
from performace issues, doxygen would be overkill.

Anderson

J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:

J Anderson wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
 
 Just strip out the function definitions, leaving the declarations in 
 there.

 This is something I'm hoping we can oblige Walter to include in the
 compiler, so if you add your voice to the heaving masses ...

  

 Me to, if not in the compiler, a tool that comes with the compiler.  The 
 sooner the "header" format is standardised, the better the chance of it 
 being used for things like intellisense in editors.
 
 In the mean time you could use doxygen (I'm not implying that the 
 declaration format standard should be anything as complex as doxygen).
 
 Anderson
 

It doesn't quite work these days, but strip.d in dig tries to strip D 
sources.  (Fortunately, strip.d doesn't depend on the rest of dig, since 
dig stopped compiling again with the advent of DMD 0.77.)

It compiles (and it somewhat works).  It might be easier to correct 
strip.d than to create a new program.  Anyways, I've attached the code 
for everyone's consideration.


-- 
Justin
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

Marco A <Marco_member pathlink.com> writes:

the Eiffel folks have a utility called "short" that does this type of thing
since it is also a single source file language per "module/class" 

In article <btct3d$16b9$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
Just strip out the function definitions, leaving the declarations in there.

This is something I'm hoping we can oblige Walter to include in the
compiler, so if you add your voice to the heaving masses ...

"Damon Gray" <Damon_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:btcrqu$14du$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm probably missing something obvious. But I've read through the

documentation
 and I can't understand how you would distribute a binary library for a D

module
 without giving out it's source. For example, lets say I wanted to release

a
 module  that does some nifty text manipulations, lets call it module

text.nifty;
 and the file is nifty.d. I compile this and want to create a libnifty.a.

So I do
 that. Then it seems to me if I want anyone to be able to use libnifty in

their
 project I have to also give them nifty.d source file.

 Is this correct?

 Maybe I just can't get past my C eyes. :) To do this with C I would make

the
 library and send it out with a .h file and they would get the definitions

from
 that.

 Thanks for helping this new D explorer.

Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:

Damon Gray wrote:

 I'm probably missing something obvious. But I've read through the documentation
 and I can't understand how you would distribute a binary library for a D module
 without giving out it's source. For example, lets say I wanted to release a
 module  that does some nifty text manipulations, lets call it module
text.nifty;
 and the file is nifty.d. I compile this and want to create a libnifty.a. So I
do
 that. Then it seems to me if I want anyone to be able to use libnifty in their
 project I have to also give them nifty.d source file.
 
 Is this correct?
 
 Maybe I just can't get past my C eyes. :) To do this with C I would make the
 library and send it out with a .h file and they would get the definitions from
 that.
 
 Thanks for helping this new D explorer.

You just need to remove the function bodies in the source, and 
distribute that.  ie

class A
{
    void B();
}

void C();

digc does this automatically, I believe. (don't quote me on that)

  -- andy