www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - Problems with compiler

reply Alessandro <Alessandro_member pathlink.com> writes:
Hi,
I've just installed the D compiler following requisites and instructions.

However, when I try to compile a simple "Hello" program, the compiler gives me
the following error :

Error : error reding file 'object.d'

What happens?

Thanks a lot.

Alessandro Picetti

Italy
May 31 2002
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
Try the flag:
    -I\dm\src\phobos

"Alessandro" <Alessandro_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:ad7tks$2gq3$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Hi,
 I've just installed the D compiler following requisites and instructions.

 However, when I try to compile a simple "Hello" program, the compiler


gives me

 the following error :

 Error : error reding file 'object.d'

 What happens?

 Thanks a lot.

 Alessandro Picetti

 Italy
May 31 2002
parent reply "Carlos" <carlos8294 msn.com> writes:
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:ad8cjp$31eo$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 Try the flag:
     -I\dm\src\phobos


It seems to be very common. Why don't you make the compiler to automatically
look for that path? Then the -I flag would only modify the default.
May 31 2002
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Carlos" <carlos8294 msn.com> wrote in message
news:ad99c8$10d0$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje
 news:ad8cjp$31eo$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 Try the flag:
     -I\dm\src\phobos


 It seems to be very common. Why don't you make the compiler to


automatically

 look for that path? Then the -I flag would only modify the default.


Good question. The answer is I don't like hardcoded paths in the executables
<g>.
May 31 2002
next sibling parent reply "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:ad9ocd$1fsl$1 digitaldaemon.com...


 "Carlos" <carlos8294 msn.com> wrote in message
 news:ad99c8$10d0$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje
 news:ad8cjp$31eo$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 Try the flag:
     -I\dm\src\phobos


 It seems to be very common. Why don't you make the compiler to


 automatically

 look for that path? Then the -I flag would only modify the default.


 Good question. The answer is I don't like hardcoded paths in the


executables

 <g>.


It's not necessary such, by the way. Mine version is
E:\Language\DMD\src\phobos =)
Maybe a config file, or an environment variable?
May 31 2002
parent reply "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> writes:
Environment variables are old school.

Mine's installed in C:\DMD\src\phobos, because that's where the few D
samples' script seemed to want to look for it.

Installation into the root is old school and is annoying.  Programs are
supposed to install into the Program Files folder by default.

Sean


 It's not necessary such, by the way. Mine version is
 E:\Language\DMD\src\phobos =)
 Maybe a config file, or an environment variable?
Jun 01 2002
next sibling parent reply "Marius S." <mars centras.lt> writes:
Sean L. Palmer wrote:

 Environment variables are old school.
 
 Mine's installed in C:\DMD\src\phobos, because that's where the few D
 samples' script seemed to want to look for it.
 
 Installation into the root is old school and is annoying.  Programs are
 supposed to install into the Program Files folder by default.


windows isn't THE ONLY operating system... IMHO
Jun 01 2002
next sibling parent "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:
"Marius S." <mars centras.lt> wrote in message
news:3CF8DBB3.9010505 centras.lt...


 Installation into the root is old school and is annoying.  Programs are
 supposed to install into the Program Files folder by default.


 windows isn't THE ONLY operating system... IMHO


It'll be /usr/bin, then =)
Jun 01 2002
prev sibling parent reply "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> writes:
Don't troll.  The Win32 version of DMD is a Windows program and should
behave as other Windows programs do.  I could care less what the future
Linux version of DMD does.  It'll probably use lots of command line switches
and environment variables, because that seems to be the UNIX way of doing
things.  On Windows, the docs should be in .CHM format, on Linux, docs will
likely be in MAN format or maybe just a textfile.  Mac versions of DMD will
be different still.

Sean

"Marius S." <mars centras.lt> wrote in message
news:3CF8DBB3.9010505 centras.lt...

 Sean L. Palmer wrote:

 Environment variables are old school.

 Mine's installed in C:\DMD\src\phobos, because that's where the few D
 samples' script seemed to want to look for it.

 Installation into the root is old school and is annoying.  Programs are
 supposed to install into the Program Files folder by default.


 windows isn't THE ONLY operating system... IMHO
Jun 01 2002
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:adbgf6$1gc3$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Don't troll.  The Win32 version of DMD is a Windows program and should
 behave as other Windows programs do.  I could care less what the future
 Linux version of DMD does.  It'll probably use lots of command line


switches

 and environment variables, because that seems to be the UNIX way of doing
 things.  On Windows, the docs should be in .CHM format, on Linux, docs


will

 likely be in MAN format or maybe just a textfile.  Mac versions of DMD


will

 be different still.


I agree with you that things should be customized to work as expected on the
particular machine it is implemented on. But I disagree about documentation.
I find that html is a great way to do documentation, and it works well on
win32. Just typing in the name of the file will bring it up all nicely
formatted in a browser window. It enables the online documents to be
identical (saves on maintenance costs). It's much better than windows help
is.
Jun 03 2002
next sibling parent reply "Martin M. Pedersen" <mmp www.moeller-pedersen.dk> writes:
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:adg4ej$1o24$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I agree with you that things should be customized to work as expected on


the

 particular machine it is implemented on. But I disagree about


documentation.

 I find that html is a great way to do documentation, and it works well on
 win32.


I like HTML documentation too, and I normally use Doxygen to make it. It is
a great tool that also allows the documentation to be generated in e.g.
Latex, CHM, RTF, and XML, thereby reducing maintenance cost even further.
Latex and RTF are good for printed documentation, while HTML is not. XML is
good for further processing. For these reasons, I prefer the Doxygen (or
JavaDoc) approach for documentation.

Regards,
Martin M. Pedersen
Jun 03 2002
next sibling parent "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:
"Martin M. Pedersen" <mmp www.moeller-pedersen.dk> wrote in message
news:adg5d2$1osp$1 digitaldaemon.com...


 I like HTML documentation too, and I normally use Doxygen to make it. It


is

 a great tool that also allows the documentation to be generated in e.g.
 Latex, CHM, RTF, and XML, thereby reducing maintenance cost even further.
 Latex and RTF are good for printed documentation, while HTML is not. XML


is

 good for further processing. For these reasons, I prefer the Doxygen (or
 JavaDoc) approach for documentation.


Doxygen and other similar tools are good to document the source code of
the program, or an interface of a library. They were not intended to be
used for purpose of making "generic" documentation, like the D reference
guide.
Jun 03 2002
prev sibling parent reply "OddesE" <OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com> writes:
"Martin M. Pedersen" <mmp www.moeller-pedersen.dk> wrote in message
news:adg5d2$1osp$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:adg4ej$1o24$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I agree with you that things should be customized to work as expected on


 the

 particular machine it is implemented on. But I disagree about


 documentation.

 I find that html is a great way to do documentation, and it works well




on

 win32.


 I like HTML documentation too, and I normally use Doxygen to make it. It


is

 a great tool that also allows the documentation to be generated in e.g.
 Latex, CHM, RTF, and XML, thereby reducing maintenance cost even further.
 Latex and RTF are good for printed documentation, while HTML is not. XML


is

 good for further processing. For these reasons, I prefer the Doxygen (or
 JavaDoc) approach for documentation.

 Regards,
 Martin M. Pedersen



I agree with you on this. Doxygen and JavaDoc rule!
I even proposed special syntax in the language to
support such tools, so we would have a standard
for writing documentation too...
I guess in the absence of such a standard the
wisest thing to do for future DDoc writers would
be to analyse DoxyGen and JavaDoc, to decide on
the best format.


--
Stijn
OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com
http://OddesE.cjb.net
_________________________________________________
Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail
Jun 11 2002
parent "anderson" <anderson firestar.com.au> writes:
<snip>

 I agree with you on this. Doxygen and JavaDoc rule!


<snip>

 wisest thing to do for future DDoc writers would
 be to analyse DoxyGen and JavaDoc, to decide on
 the best format.


<snip>

I agree i'd be nice to have something like that in D. Parhaps there's a way
to improve on DoxyGen and JavaDoc to make the output even more intuative.

--Just a thought

For example I'd be good if the generated doc would beable to compare
differn't versions/depresiations and even generate something simular to the
Walters "Converting C to D" page.

Perhaps the commenting would be something like this

/*
Title = ...
Version = "D" (or a number)
Description = you no longer need to ...
AlsoSee = Func1, Func2 ...
Arg1 = ...
Arg2 = ...
Returns = ...

Version = "C" (or a number)
Description = you have to ....
*/
bool Func(int Arg1, int Arg2)
{

}

And version would be optional. The topmost version would be considered the
latest version. Older version documentation would only be placed in the
versioning docs. The latest version would be used for the main hieratically
documents. Perhaps there could be a special commenting character in D for
this instead of /* */. I'd be nice if this was built into the complier, but
that's probably to much extra work, and could be done in a make/bat (yuk)
file instead.

Perhaps DoxyGen and JavaDoc already have something like that, which I
missed.

But I'd agree that this would probably be to complex for at least the
initial version.
Jun 16 2002
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:adg4ej$1o24$1 digitaldaemon.com...


 I agree with you that things should be customized to work as expected on


the

 particular machine it is implemented on. But I disagree about


documentation.

 I find that html is a great way to do documentation, and it works well on
 win32. Just typing in the name of the file will bring it up all nicely
 formatted in a browser window. It enables the online documents to be
 identical (saves on maintenance costs). It's much better than windows help
 is.


The only problem with HTML docs, they cannot be searched for
topics/keywords.
However, there are solutions of that problem, varying across the platforms.
I think it would be a good idea to compile it into CHM for Windows
distribution...
Jun 03 2002
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> wrote in message
news:adg7f4$1r5b$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 The only problem with HTML docs, they cannot be searched for
 topics/keywords.


Yes, though I am using Atomz as a workaround for that.


 However, there are solutions of that problem, varying across the


platforms.

 I think it would be a good idea to compile it into CHM for Windows
 distribution...


If there was a reliable html->chm compiler that might be a possibility
(reliable in that no tweaking is necessary). Otherwise, I doubt it is worth
the effort.
Jun 03 2002
next sibling parent "anderson" <anderson firestar.com.au> writes:
I like the HTML. Even windows uses html for alot of it's help documention.
It would be nice to have a search feature however.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:adgd45$20t0$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> wrote in message
 news:adg7f4$1r5b$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 The only problem with HTML docs, they cannot be searched for
 topics/keywords.


 Yes, though I am using Atomz as a workaround for that.


 However, there are solutions of that problem, varying across the


 platforms.

 I think it would be a good idea to compile it into CHM for Windows
 distribution...


 If there was a reliable html->chm compiler that might be a possibility
 (reliable in that no tweaking is necessary). Otherwise, I doubt it is


worth

 the effort.
Jun 03 2002
prev sibling parent "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:adgd45$20t0$2 digitaldaemon.com...


 If there was a reliable html->chm compiler that might be a possibility
 (reliable in that no tweaking is necessary). Otherwise, I doubt it is


worth

 the effort.


I don't think you need tweaking to make a CHM out of a set of HTMLs.
The only thing that needs to be done, one must create a hierarchical
table of contents.
Jun 03 2002
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> writes:
It's just that there's so many loose .GIF files that way.  ;(   And it's not
as searchable.

That wasn't my main point.  HTML help is fine.

Sean

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:adg4ej$1o24$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
 news:adbgf6$1gc3$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Don't troll.  The Win32 version of DMD is a Windows program and should
 behave as other Windows programs do.  I could care less what the future
 Linux version of DMD does.  It'll probably use lots of command line


 switches

 and environment variables, because that seems to be the UNIX way of




doing

 things.  On Windows, the docs should be in .CHM format, on Linux, docs


 will

 likely be in MAN format or maybe just a textfile.  Mac versions of DMD


 will

 be different still.


 I agree with you that things should be customized to work as expected on


the

 particular machine it is implemented on. But I disagree about


documentation.

 I find that html is a great way to do documentation, and it works well on
 win32. Just typing in the name of the file will bring it up all nicely
 formatted in a browser window. It enables the online documents to be
 identical (saves on maintenance costs). It's much better than windows help
 is.
Jun 03 2002
parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
Oh, the only gif files I use are the logo and the silly cartoons I drew up
one day <g>.

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:adgb2d$1unv$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 It's just that there's so many loose .GIF files that way.  ;(   And it's


not

 as searchable.

 That wasn't my main point.  HTML help is fine.

 Sean
Jun 03 2002
prev sibling parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:adg4ej$1o24$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I agree with you that things should be customized to work as expected on


the

 particular machine it is implemented on. But I disagree about


documentation.

 I find that html is a great way to do documentation, and it works well on
 win32. Just typing in the name of the file will bring it up all nicely
 formatted in a browser window. It enables the online documents to be
 identical (saves on maintenance costs). It's much better than windows help
 is.


And I forgot to mention - if you don't have an html browser, you can still
read the documentation because it's ascii. This is better than, say
Microsoft Word files or Adobe Acrobat files in which the text cannot be
extracted without a specialized file reader.
Jun 03 2002
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "anderson" <anderson firestar.com.au> writes:
But It's easy to back-path, so I don't see a problem there.they should be
written with
cd.. (or whatever the OS uses), to back work out the most likely place of
things.

ie sample
C:\<whatever>\DMD\samples\d
Would go something like,
..\..\bin\dmd <other>

In other words use ralative pathing not direct pathing.

"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ad9rpr$1m4f$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Environment variables are old school.

 Mine's installed in C:\DMD\src\phobos, because that's where the few D
 samples' script seemed to want to look for it.

 Installation into the root is old school and is annoying.  Programs are
 supposed to install into the Program Files folder by default.

 Sean


 It's not necessary such, by the way. Mine version is
 E:\Language\DMD\src\phobos =)
 Maybe a config file, or an environment variable?
Jun 01 2002
parent reply "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:
"anderson" <anderson firestar.com.au> wrote in message
news:adak9k$j77$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 But It's easy to back-path, so I don't see a problem there.they should be
 written with
 cd.. (or whatever the OS uses), to back work out the most likely place of
 things.

 ie sample
 C:\<whatever>\DMD\samples\d
 Would go something like,
 ..\..\bin\dmd <other>

 In other words use ralative pathing not direct pathing.


This won't work as is, because I could run dmd even from another disk...
but the path could be relative to the location of dmd.exe, which can
be determined by GetModulePath on Windows.
Jun 02 2002
parent "anderson" <anderson firestar.com.au> writes:
I understand that, I was trying to present a general case. I was talking in
regards to the "samples" included that are generally installed at that
location in the hierarchy. And I'll defiantly need some more work.

But your probably right, It may only work on my machine.


"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> wrote in message
news:adcfnj$2gh3$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "anderson" <anderson firestar.com.au> wrote in message
 news:adak9k$j77$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 But It's easy to back-path, so I don't see a problem there.they should




be

 written with
 cd.. (or whatever the OS uses), to back work out the most likely place




of

 things.

 ie sample
 C:\<whatever>\DMD\samples\d
 Would go something like,
 ..\..\bin\dmd <other>

 In other words use ralative pathing not direct pathing.


 This won't work as is, because I could run dmd even from another disk...
 but the path could be relative to the location of dmd.exe, which can
 be determined by GetModulePath on Windows.
Jun 02 2002
prev sibling parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ad9rpr$1m4f$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Installation into the root is old school and is annoying.  Programs are
 supposed to install into the Program Files folder by default.


Us command line curmudgeons don't like directories with spaces in them (you
have to put "" around the arguments, making it more difficult to
touch-type). In any case, hardcoded paths are usually a bad idea because
people do have different preferences as to where it should be installed.
Jun 01 2002
parent reply "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> writes:
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:adb2ha$11qt$3 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
 news:ad9rpr$1m4f$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Installation into the root is old school and is annoying.  Programs are
 supposed to install into the Program Files folder by default.


 Us command line curmudgeons don't like directories with spaces in them


(you

 have to put "" around the arguments, making it more difficult to
 touch-type).


I understand.  I used to be a big CLI person myself back in the DOS days
maybe 5 or 6 years ago.  I just don't find it productive anymore.

I actually curse Microsoft for making all the basic folders have such long
unwieldy names.  (Program Files,   Documents And Settings, My Pictures, cmon
give me a break I just want Programs, Documents, Pictures.  In fact I'd
rather have Prog, Doc, and Pic.  Most concepts can be expressed by one word
if you choose the word carefully.)


 In any case, hardcoded paths are usually a bad idea because
 people do have different preferences as to where it should be installed.


I said "by default"... the installer is supposed to ask you where to put it.
Then it sets up all the nasty environment variables or registry entries for
you.  Ideally the program wouldn't require any and it would

(A) ask the operating system where it is located (location of DMD.EXE)
(B) attempt to search that general area for its configuration file
(..\CONFIG\CONFIG.INI or whatever)
(C) if it can't find a config file, use some default relative paths and/or
complain that the user needs to make a config file.
(D) get the paths out of that config file.

Sean
Jun 01 2002
parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:adbgv0$1gqm$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I understand.  I used to be a big CLI person myself back in the DOS days
 maybe 5 or 6 years ago.  I just don't find it productive anymore.


I've occaisionally tried to use guis, but the lack of a history buffer makes
it slow for me.



 I actually curse Microsoft for making all the basic folders have such long
 unwieldy names.  (Program Files,   Documents And Settings, My Pictures,


cmon

 give me a break I just want Programs, Documents, Pictures.  In fact I'd
 rather have Prog, Doc, and Pic.  Most concepts can be expressed by one


word

 if you choose the word carefully.)


Yes, that stuff is really annoying. Just try and find what directory XP puts
the email files in. It's so unwieldy (and uses hidden directories) I wrote a
.bat file just to cd to it.



 I said "by default"... the installer is supposed to ask you where to put


it.

 Then it sets up all the nasty environment variables or registry entries


for

 you.  Ideally the program wouldn't require any and it would
 (A) ask the operating system where it is located (location of DMD.EXE)
 (B) attempt to search that general area for its configuration file
 (..\CONFIG\CONFIG.INI or whatever)
 (C) if it can't find a config file, use some default relative paths and/or
 complain that the user needs to make a config file.
 (D) get the paths out of that config file.


That's what the C/C++ compiler does, and DMD does it now, too. No need at
all for registry settings.
Jun 03 2002
prev sibling parent reply "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> writes:
Have it search GetModulePath\..\lib if it can't find the import library
anywhere else.  That's hardcoded yet relative to the compiler \bin folder;
it's not quite so bad.  ;)  And, lib is the standard folder in the dmd
distribution.  This would be equivalent to C's #include <sysheader.h> yet D
would not have to require special syntax for system imports.

Since DMD is a Win32 executable, the proper Way of Doing Things on Windows
these days is to store these sort of paths in the registry.  It's part of
the compiler installation process and is not hardcoded.

Sean

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:ad9ocd$1fsl$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Carlos" <carlos8294 msn.com> wrote in message
 news:ad99c8$10d0$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje
 news:ad8cjp$31eo$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 Try the flag:
     -I\dm\src\phobos


 It seems to be very common. Why don't you make the compiler to


 automatically

 look for that path? Then the -I flag would only modify the default.


 Good question. The answer is I don't like hardcoded paths in the


executables

 <g>.
Jun 01 2002
parent reply "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:
"Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ad9rlb$1lpi$1 digitaldaemon.com...


 Have it search GetModulePath\..\lib if it can't find the import library
 anywhere else.  That's hardcoded yet relative to the compiler \bin folder;
 it's not quite so bad.  ;)  And, lib is the standard folder in the dmd
 distribution.  This would be equivalent to C's #include <sysheader.h> yet


D

 would not have to require special syntax for system imports.


Yes, agreed. I think it is the best way. Used it in my "compiler" =) stuff
myself. Very convenient to the end-users - just unzip the archive, and
compiler's ready.
Jun 01 2002
parent "anderson" <anderson firestar.com.au> writes:
Also an automatic installer that set it all up would be good. Or even a
setup program that first searches the most likly places.  I agree that It's
a frustraion to new users to have to type
-I\dm\src\phobos.

If it doesn't find the phobos libary in a list of most likly places, it
could give the user the option to search for it and record it in a local
file.

I've written such thing myself and there not that hard.

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> wrote in message
news:adaa8u$4ht$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 "Sean L. Palmer" <seanpalmer earthlink.net> wrote in message
 news:ad9rlb$1lpi$1 digitaldaemon.com...


 Have it search GetModulePath\..\lib if it can't find the import library
 anywhere else.  That's hardcoded yet relative to the compiler \bin




folder;

 it's not quite so bad.  ;)  And, lib is the standard folder in the dmd
 distribution.  This would be equivalent to C's #include <sysheader.h>




yet

 D

 would not have to require special syntax for system imports.


 Yes, agreed. I think it is the best way. Used it in my "compiler" =) stuff
 myself. Very convenient to the end-users - just unzip the archive, and
 compiler's ready.
Jun 01 2002