www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Proposal for __LINE__, __FILE__ etc.

reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
Is there any reason why these can't be pragmas?

writefln("This is line "~pragma(line));
writefln("Build 12345, built on "~pragma(timestamp));

Or is it just not.. a good idea to extend the language through pragmas?  I 
thought it might be a good idea as they don't have to be keywords, and at 
the same time, we don't have to implement a whole new language feature just 
to have them.  And they're prettier than __LINE__.
Mar 12 2005
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:


 Is there any reason why these can't be pragmas?
 
 writefln("This is line "~pragma(line));
 writefln("Build 12345, built on "~pragma(timestamp));


AFAIK, pragmas just affect other declaration/statements,
or have side effects outside the compilation such as
linking, and don't actually return anything themselves ?

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/pragma.html


 Or is it just not.. a good idea to extend the language through pragmas?  I 
 thought it might be a good idea as they don't have to be keywords, and at 
 the same time, we don't have to implement a whole new language feature just 
 to have them.  And they're prettier than __LINE__. 


The current ones were not really meant to be pretty,
but have the same names as the ancient old C macros.
New language features, maybe get something prettier ?

Or not... (length = $)

--anders

PS: I don't think they're keywords,
     just predefined identifiers ?
Mar 12 2005
parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
 AFAIK, pragmas just affect other declaration/statements,
 or have side effects outside the compilation such as
 linking, and don't actually return anything themselves ?


That's the reason I wasn't sure if it was a good idea.  Then again, neither 
of the currently existing pragmas actually influence any expressions or 
statements ;)  And it also sort of makes sense to use the pragma expression, 
as pragma is used for compile-time statements, which is what __LINE__ etc. 
are.


 The current ones were not really meant to be pretty,
 but have the same names as the ancient old C macros.


They're only as ugly as they are now in order to.. somewhat dissuade people 
from using them, as they might not be kept in the language.  They still have 
a use, nonetheless, and a demand for them, so why not make them pretty like 
(most of) the rest of D?


 New language features, maybe get something prettier ?
 Or not... (length = $)


Haha :)


 PS: I don't think they're keywords,
     just predefined identifiers ?


Either way, they're reserved.  Having predefined identifiers just seems .. 
kludgy to me.  Seems more solid if it's actually a construct in the 
language.
Mar 13 2005
prev sibling parent "Daniel Kos" <unodgs tlen.pl> writes:
 Is there any reason why these can't be pragmas?

 writefln("This is line "~pragma(line));
 writefln("Build 12345, built on "~pragma(timestamp));


I really like it!



-- 
uno (unodgs tlen.pl)
Mar 12 2005