www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Module name compile time constant?

reply davidl <davidl 126.com> writes:
module abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;

what if i need the string of "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod" generally  
and don't want to copy paste differently in all my modules?


-- 
使用 Opera 革命性的电子邮件客户程序: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Apr 14 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
davidl wrote:

 
 module abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;
 
 what if i need the string of "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod" generally 
 and don't want to copy paste differently in all my modules?


alias abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod foo;
Apr 14 2008
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 davidl wrote:

 module abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;

 what if i need the string of "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod" 
 generally and don't want to copy paste differently in all my modules?


 
 alias abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod foo;


I think he wants that full module name as a char[], though.

Is that what you want, Davidl?

Or do you just want to be able to say


    import short.awesome; // aka "import abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod"

If that's what you want you can create a module in short/awesome.d that 
contains just:

   module short.awesome;
   public import abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;

But somehow I'm thinking you actually want to automatically get that 
module name as a string.

How about going the other way around?  Start with a string?

string foo = "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod";
mixin(import_module(foo));

where import_module  is

string import_module(string name) {
    return "import " ~ name ";" ;
}

If those don't answer your question you're gonna have to be more specific.


--bb
Apr 14 2008
parent reply davidl <davidl 126.com> writes:
在 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:00:57 +0800，Bill Baxter  
<dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> 写道:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 davidl wrote:

 module abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;

 what if i need the string of "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod"  
 generally and don't want to copy paste differently in all my modules?


  alias abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod foo;


 I think he wants that full module name as a char[], though.

 Is that what you want, Davidl?

 Or do you just want to be able to say


     import short.awesome; // aka "import abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod"

 If that's what you want you can create a module in short/awesome.d that  
 contains just:

    module short.awesome;
    public import abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;

 But somehow I'm thinking you actually want to automatically get that  
 module name as a string.

 How about going the other way around?  Start with a string?

 string foo = "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod";
 mixin(import_module(foo));

 where import_module  is

 string import_module(string name) {
     return "import " ~ name ";" ;
 }

 If those don't answer your question you're gonna have to be more  
 specific.


 --bb


Yes, i want the string. But I don't want to modify the module part to  
manually defined strings
I want some magic of module.name to get the current module name in compile  
time string form.

-- 
使用 Opera 革命性的电子邮件客户程序: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Apr 14 2008
next sibling parent reply "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
On 15/04/2008, davidl <davidl 126.com> wrote:

  I want some magic of module.name to get the current module name in compile
 time string form.


Yeah, basically you want to add __MODULE__ to the list of "special tokens" in
http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html

I think it would be easy for Walter to add, and I don't think it's
particularly controversial, so why not just go ahead and add an
enhancement request to Bugzilla.
Apr 15 2008
parent reply davidl <davidl 126.com> writes:
在 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:12:13 +0800，Janice Caron <caron800 googlemail.com>  
写道:


 On 15/04/2008, davidl <davidl 126.com> wrote:

  I want some magic of module.name to get the current module name in  
 compile
 time string form.


 Yeah, basically you want to add __MODULE__ to the list of "special  
 tokens" in
 http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html

 I think it would be easy for Walter to add, and I don't think it's
 particularly controversial, so why not just go ahead and add an
 enhancement request to Bugzilla.


I'm looking for a cleaner solution.
__SPEC_TOKEN__ for me looks like a hack.

and it's not so well defined if my app doesn't have a module declaration  
section?
should the compiler stop the compilation?


-- 
使用 Opera 革命性的电子邮件客户程序: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Apr 15 2008
parent reply Spacen Jasset <spacenjasset yahoo.co.uk> writes:
davidl wrote:

 在 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:12:13 +0800，Janice Caron 
 <caron800 googlemail.com> 写道:
 

 On 15/04/2008, davidl <davidl 126.com> wrote:

  I want some magic of module.name to get the current module name in 
 compile
 time string form.


 Yeah, basically you want to add __MODULE__ to the list of "special 
 tokens" in
 http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html

 I think it would be easy for Walter to add, and I don't think it's
 particularly controversial, so why not just go ahead and add an
 enhancement request to Bugzilla.


 
 I'm looking for a cleaner solution.
 __SPEC_TOKEN__ for me looks like a hack.
 
 and it's not so well defined if my app doesn't have a module declaration 
 section?
 should the compiler stop the compilation?
 
 


__MODULE__ seems reasonable to me. It's in line with __FILE__ and 
__LINE__ and __FUNC__ (which seems absent, from dmd 1 anyway)

If you have no module definition, then presumably it could be "" or 
whatever module the compiler considers it is when that happens according 
to the current rules.

They look a bit like C preprocessor type macros, but really they aren't 
so much, at any rate there is none of the problems you get with C style 
macros and so they don't seem like a hack to me.

What alternative did you have in mind?
Apr 15 2008
parent reply "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:56:32 +0200, Spacen Jasset  
<spacenjasset yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


 davidl wrote:

 在 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:12:13 +0800，Janice Caron  
 <caron800 googlemail.com> 写道:


 On 15/04/2008, davidl <davidl 126.com> wrote:

  I want some magic of module.name to get the current module name in  
 compile
 time string form.


 Yeah, basically you want to add __MODULE__ to the list of "special  
 tokens" in
 http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html

 I think it would be easy for Walter to add, and I don't think it's
 particularly controversial, so why not just go ahead and add an
 enhancement request to Bugzilla.


  I'm looking for a cleaner solution.
 __SPEC_TOKEN__ for me looks like a hack.
  and it's not so well defined if my app doesn't have a module  
 declaration section?
 should the compiler stop the compilation?


 __MODULE__ seems reasonable to me. It's in line with __FILE__ and  
 __LINE__ and __FUNC__ (which seems absent, from dmd 1 anyway)

 If you have no module definition, then presumably it could be "" or  
 whatever module the compiler considers it is when that happens according  
 to the current rules.

 They look a bit like C preprocessor type macros, but really they aren't  
 so much, at any rate there is none of the problems you get with C style  
 macros and so they don't seem like a hack to me.

 What alternative did you have in mind?



One could argue that a more D-style way to do it would be along the lines
of preprocessor.line, preprocessor.file, and so on. It looks less like a
hack and more like a real part of the language. One could possibly add
other things to this preprocessor object as well, for instance a list of
version statements, and I'm sure there are other ideas floating around.

-- Simen
Apr 15 2008
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Simen Kjaeraas wrote:

 On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:56:32 +0200, Spacen Jasset 
 <spacenjasset yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
 

 davidl wrote:

 在 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:12:13 +0800，Janice Caron 
 <caron800 googlemail.com> 写道:


 On 15/04/2008, davidl <davidl 126.com> wrote:

  I want some magic of module.name to get the current module name in 
 compile
 time string form.


 Yeah, basically you want to add __MODULE__ to the list of "special 
 tokens" in
 http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html

 I think it would be easy for Walter to add, and I don't think it's
 particularly controversial, so why not just go ahead and add an
 enhancement request to Bugzilla.


  I'm looking for a cleaner solution.
 __SPEC_TOKEN__ for me looks like a hack.
  and it's not so well defined if my app doesn't have a module 
 declaration section?
 should the compiler stop the compilation?


 __MODULE__ seems reasonable to me. It's in line with __FILE__ and 
 __LINE__ and __FUNC__ (which seems absent, from dmd 1 anyway)

 If you have no module definition, then presumably it could be "" or 
 whatever module the compiler considers it is when that happens 
 according to the current rules.

 They look a bit like C preprocessor type macros, but really they 
 aren't so much, at any rate there is none of the problems you get with 
 C style macros and so they don't seem like a hack to me.

 What alternative did you have in mind?


 
 
 One could argue that a more D-style way to do it would be along the lines
 of preprocessor.line, preprocessor.file, and so on. It looks less like a
 hack and more like a real part of the language. One could possibly add
 other things to this preprocessor object as well, for instance a list of
 version statements, and I'm sure there are other ideas floating around.


+1

Good point!  Maybe it should still have a preprocessor macro feel 
though, with underscores, like

   __ID(line) or __ID__(file), etc. (akin to __traits(...))

I guess pretending it's an object and using . access would be ok too.

   __ID.line or __ID__.file, etc.



--bb
Apr 15 2008
parent reply Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 Simen Kjaeraas wrote:

 On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:56:32 +0200, Spacen Jasset
 <spacenjasset yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


 davidl wrote:

 在 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:12:13 +0800，Janice Caron
 <caron800 googlemail.com> 写道:


 On 15/04/2008, davidl <davidl 126.com> wrote:

  I want some magic of module.name to get the current module name
 in compile
 time string form.


 Yeah, basically you want to add __MODULE__ to the list of "special
 tokens" in
 http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html

 I think it would be easy for Walter to add, and I don't think it's
 particularly controversial, so why not just go ahead and add an
 enhancement request to Bugzilla.


  I'm looking for a cleaner solution.
 __SPEC_TOKEN__ for me looks like a hack.
  and it's not so well defined if my app doesn't have a module
 declaration section?
 should the compiler stop the compilation?


 __MODULE__ seems reasonable to me. It's in line with __FILE__ and
 __LINE__ and __FUNC__ (which seems absent, from dmd 1 anyway)

 If you have no module definition, then presumably it could be "" or
 whatever module the compiler considers it is when that happens
 according to the current rules.

 They look a bit like C preprocessor type macros, but really they
 aren't so much, at any rate there is none of the problems you get
 with C style macros and so they don't seem like a hack to me.

 What alternative did you have in mind?



 One could argue that a more D-style way to do it would be along the
 lines
 of preprocessor.line, preprocessor.file, and so on. It looks less like a
 hack and more like a real part of the language. One could possibly add
 other things to this preprocessor object as well, for instance a list of
 version statements, and I'm sure there are other ideas floating around.


 +1

 Good point!  Maybe it should still have a preprocessor macro feel
 though, with underscores, like

   __ID(line) or __ID__(file), etc. (akin to __traits(...))

 I guess pretending it's an object and using . access would be ok too.

   __ID.line or __ID__.file, etc.



 --bb


+2 for the idea, -infinity for the name. D does not have a preprocessor.
IMO, the best way to implement it is to have a defined API for the
compiler and use a Compiler object (just like you have a GC object)
insead of adding various symbols to the language. This way, you can
remove __traits(...) as well as all those __Line__, __File__, etc from
the language as they would become regular methods.

--Yigal

PS - Isn't there something like a stringof property for symbols that
returns a string representation?
Apr 15 2008
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:

 Simen Kjaeraas wrote:

 On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:56:32 +0200, Spacen Jasset
 <spacenjasset yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


 davidl wrote:

 在 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:12:13 +0800，Janice Caron
 <caron800 googlemail.com> 写道:


 On 15/04/2008, davidl <davidl 126.com> wrote:

  I want some magic of module.name to get the current module name
 in compile
 time string form.


 Yeah, basically you want to add __MODULE__ to the list of "special
 tokens" in
 http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html

 I think it would be easy for Walter to add, and I don't think it's
 particularly controversial, so why not just go ahead and add an
 enhancement request to Bugzilla.


  I'm looking for a cleaner solution.
 __SPEC_TOKEN__ for me looks like a hack.
  and it's not so well defined if my app doesn't have a module
 declaration section?
 should the compiler stop the compilation?


 __MODULE__ seems reasonable to me. It's in line with __FILE__ and
 __LINE__ and __FUNC__ (which seems absent, from dmd 1 anyway)

 If you have no module definition, then presumably it could be "" or
 whatever module the compiler considers it is when that happens
 according to the current rules.

 They look a bit like C preprocessor type macros, but really they
 aren't so much, at any rate there is none of the problems you get
 with C style macros and so they don't seem like a hack to me.

 What alternative did you have in mind?


 One could argue that a more D-style way to do it would be along the
 lines
 of preprocessor.line, preprocessor.file, and so on. It looks less like a
 hack and more like a real part of the language. One could possibly add
 other things to this preprocessor object as well, for instance a list of
 version statements, and I'm sure there are other ideas floating around.


 +1

 Good point!  Maybe it should still have a preprocessor macro feel
 though, with underscores, like

   __ID(line) or __ID__(file), etc. (akin to __traits(...))

 I guess pretending it's an object and using . access would be ok too.

   __ID.line or __ID__.file, etc.



 --bb


 
 +2 for the idea, -infinity for the name. D does not have a preprocessor.
 IMO, the best way to implement it is to have a defined API for the
 compiler and use a Compiler object (just like you have a GC object)
 insead of adding various symbols to the language. This way, you can
 remove __traits(...) as well as all those __Line__, __File__, etc from
 the language as they would become regular methods.
 
 --Yigal
 
 PS - Isn't there something like a stringof property for symbols that
 returns a string representation?


That's a good one too.  So you would do something like

    import system : Compiler;

And the compiler would give you access to the Compiler object?
It might be nice to reserve some module names for compiler usage like 
that.  For providing 'intrinsic' modules.
Python does something like that with its __future__ pseudo-module.

But I think the suggestion may not work for __LINE__ and __FILE__ type 
constructs.  Those are replaced by the lexer which doesn't know anything 
about objects or modules or namespaces.  That's probably why there's not 
__FUNCTION__, too, because the lexer just doesn't know what's a function 
and what's not.  But it does know what line of what file it's reading.



--bb
Apr 15 2008
parent Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 Yigal Chripun wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:

 Simen Kjaeraas wrote:

 On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:56:32 +0200, Spacen Jasset
 <spacenjasset yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


 davidl wrote:

 在 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:12:13 +0800，Janice Caron
 <caron800 googlemail.com> 写道:


 On 15/04/2008, davidl <davidl 126.com> wrote:

  I want some magic of module.name to get the current module name
 in compile
 time string form.


 Yeah, basically you want to add __MODULE__ to the list of "special
 tokens" in
 http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html

 I think it would be easy for Walter to add, and I don't think it's
 particularly controversial, so why not just go ahead and add an
 enhancement request to Bugzilla.


  I'm looking for a cleaner solution.
 __SPEC_TOKEN__ for me looks like a hack.
  and it's not so well defined if my app doesn't have a module
 declaration section?
 should the compiler stop the compilation?


 __MODULE__ seems reasonable to me. It's in line with __FILE__ and
 __LINE__ and __FUNC__ (which seems absent, from dmd 1 anyway)

 If you have no module definition, then presumably it could be "" or
 whatever module the compiler considers it is when that happens
 according to the current rules.

 They look a bit like C preprocessor type macros, but really they
 aren't so much, at any rate there is none of the problems you get
 with C style macros and so they don't seem like a hack to me.

 What alternative did you have in mind?


 One could argue that a more D-style way to do it would be along the
 lines
 of preprocessor.line, preprocessor.file, and so on. It looks less
 like a
 hack and more like a real part of the language. One could possibly add
 other things to this preprocessor object as well, for instance a
 list of
 version statements, and I'm sure there are other ideas floating
 around.


 +1

 Good point!  Maybe it should still have a preprocessor macro feel
 though, with underscores, like

   __ID(line) or __ID__(file), etc. (akin to __traits(...))

 I guess pretending it's an object and using . access would be ok too.

   __ID.line or __ID__.file, etc.



 --bb


 +2 for the idea, -infinity for the name. D does not have a preprocessor.
 IMO, the best way to implement it is to have a defined API for the
 compiler and use a Compiler object (just like you have a GC object)
 insead of adding various symbols to the language. This way, you can
 remove __traits(...) as well as all those __Line__, __File__, etc from
 the language as they would become regular methods.

 --Yigal

 PS - Isn't there something like a stringof property for symbols that
 returns a string representation?


 That's a good one too.  So you would do something like

    import system : Compiler;

 And the compiler would give you access to the Compiler object?
 It might be nice to reserve some module names for compiler usage like
 that.  For providing 'intrinsic' modules.
 Python does something like that with its __future__ pseudo-module.

 But I think the suggestion may not work for __LINE__ and __FILE__ type
 constructs.  Those are replaced by the lexer which doesn't know
 anything about objects or modules or namespaces.  That's probably why
 there's not __FUNCTION__, too, because the lexer just doesn't know
 what's a function and what's not.  But it does know what line of what
 file it's reading.



 --bb


I think the __LINE__ can be replaced by a CTFE function. This way it
would be possible to provide two methods to solve the issue for mixins
(__LINE__ where the mixin defined vs. __LINE__ where the mixin in
instantiated).
Another befit of this would be a well defined API for D compilers (with
a mechanism for extensions for compiler vendors) which could be used for
other tools. For example, currently if you want a D aware IDE/editor you
either need a D parser or an implementation of the dmd frontend. rebuild
contains an embeded dmd frontend and Descent has a java port. Instead of
reinventing the wheel, such tools could just use that API, and new
features of dmd would be quickly available to IDEs.

Does this worth the extra work? what do you think?

-- Yigal
Apr 16 2008
prev sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
davidl wrote:

 在 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:00:57 +0800，Bill Baxter 
 <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> 写道:
 

 Walter Bright wrote:

 davidl wrote:

 module abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;

 what if i need the string of "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod" 
 generally and don't want to copy paste differently in all my modules?


  alias abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod foo;


 I think he wants that full module name as a char[], though.

 Is that what you want, Davidl?

 Or do you just want to be able to say


     import short.awesome; // aka "import abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod"

 If that's what you want you can create a module in short/awesome.d 
 that contains just:

    module short.awesome;
    public import abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;

 But somehow I'm thinking you actually want to automatically get that 
 module name as a string.

 How about going the other way around?  Start with a string?

 string foo = "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod";
 mixin(import_module(foo));

 where import_module  is

 string import_module(string name) {
     return "import " ~ name ";" ;
 }

 If those don't answer your question you're gonna have to be more 
 specific.


 --bb


 
 Yes, i want the string. But I don't want to modify the module part to 
 manually defined strings
 I want some magic of module.name to get the current module name in 
 compile time string form.
 


I tried this to see if it would work:

---  ---
module foo.test;

void main()
{
	writefln(.stringof);
}


Almost worked! It prints "module test". It would do what you wanted if 
'.stringof' returned the fully qualified module (and didn't have the 
"module " prefix).



-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Apr 25 2008
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com.au> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 davidl wrote:

 在 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:00:57 +0800，Bill Baxter 
 <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> 写道:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 davidl wrote:

 module abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;

 what if i need the string of "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod" 
 generally and don't want to copy paste differently in all my modules?


  alias abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod foo;


 I think he wants that full module name as a char[], though.

 Is that what you want, Davidl?

 Or do you just want to be able to say


     import short.awesome; // aka "import 
 abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod"

 If that's what you want you can create a module in short/awesome.d 
 that contains just:

    module short.awesome;
    public import abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;

 But somehow I'm thinking you actually want to automatically get that 
 module name as a string.

 How about going the other way around?  Start with a string?

 string foo = "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod";
 mixin(import_module(foo));

 where import_module  is

 string import_module(string name) {
     return "import " ~ name ";" ;
 }

 If those don't answer your question you're gonna have to be more 
 specific.


 --bb


 Yes, i want the string. But I don't want to modify the module part to 
 manually defined strings
 I want some magic of module.name to get the current module name in 
 compile time string form.


 
 I tried this to see if it would work:
 
 ---  ---
 module foo.test;
 
 void main()
 {
     writefln(.stringof);
 }
 
 
 Almost worked! It prints "module test". It would do what you wanted if 
 '.stringof' returned the fully qualified module (and didn't have the 
 "module " prefix).


Maybe it's supposed to. The spec for .stringof is completely different 
to what's implemented.

But anyway...

Getting the fully qualified name is currently possible (since about 
D0.150) but it's a bit disgusting to do, and I can't really recommend 
it.  My old meta.nameof module did the job.
If you pass the module name as a template alias parameter, the fully 
qualified name appears in the mangled name. You just need to demangle it 
and extract the module name.
Apr 26 2008
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Don wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 davidl wrote:

 在 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:00:57 +0800，Bill Baxter 
 <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> 写道:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 davidl wrote:

 module abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;

 what if i need the string of "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod" 
 generally and don't want to copy paste differently in all my modules?


  alias abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod foo;


 I think he wants that full module name as a char[], though.

 Is that what you want, Davidl?

 Or do you just want to be able to say


     import short.awesome; // aka "import 
 abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod"

 If that's what you want you can create a module in short/awesome.d 
 that contains just:

    module short.awesome;
    public import abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;

 But somehow I'm thinking you actually want to automatically get that 
 module name as a string.

 How about going the other way around?  Start with a string?

 string foo = "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod";
 mixin(import_module(foo));

 where import_module  is

 string import_module(string name) {
     return "import " ~ name ";" ;
 }

 If those don't answer your question you're gonna have to be more 
 specific.


 --bb


 Yes, i want the string. But I don't want to modify the module part to 
 manually defined strings
 I want some magic of module.name to get the current module name in 
 compile time string form.


 I tried this to see if it would work:

 ---  ---
 module foo.test;

 void main()
 {
     writefln(.stringof);
 }


 Almost worked! It prints "module test". It would do what you wanted if 
 '.stringof' returned the fully qualified module (and didn't have the 
 "module " prefix).


 
 Maybe it's supposed to. The spec for .stringof is completely different 
 to what's implemented.
 
 But anyway...
 
 Getting the fully qualified name is currently possible (since about 
 D0.150) but it's a bit disgusting to do, and I can't really recommend 
 it.  My old meta.nameof module did the job.
 If you pass the module name as a template alias parameter, the fully 
 qualified name appears in the mangled name. You just need to demangle it 
 and extract the module name.


Yikes!  Devious.  I guess that's why they pay you the big bucks. ... Or 
should if they don't.

--bb
Apr 26 2008
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com.au> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 Don wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 davidl wrote:

 在 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:00:57 +0800，Bill Baxter 
 <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> 写道:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 davidl wrote:

 module abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;

 what if i need the string of "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod" 
 generally and don't want to copy paste differently in all my 
 modules?


  alias abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod foo;


 I think he wants that full module name as a char[], though.

 Is that what you want, Davidl?

 Or do you just want to be able to say


     import short.awesome; // aka "import 
 abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod"

 If that's what you want you can create a module in short/awesome.d 
 that contains just:

    module short.awesome;
    public import abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod;

 But somehow I'm thinking you actually want to automatically get 
 that module name as a string.

 How about going the other way around?  Start with a string?

 string foo = "abc.super.long.pack.awesome.mod";
 mixin(import_module(foo));

 where import_module  is

 string import_module(string name) {
     return "import " ~ name ";" ;
 }

 If those don't answer your question you're gonna have to be more 
 specific.


 --bb


 Yes, i want the string. But I don't want to modify the module part 
 to manually defined strings
 I want some magic of module.name to get the current module name in 
 compile time string form.


 I tried this to see if it would work:

 ---  ---
 module foo.test;

 void main()
 {
     writefln(.stringof);
 }


 Almost worked! It prints "module test". It would do what you wanted 
 if '.stringof' returned the fully qualified module (and didn't have 
 the "module " prefix).


 Maybe it's supposed to. The spec for .stringof is completely different 
 to what's implemented.

 But anyway...

 Getting the fully qualified name is currently possible (since about 
 D0.150) but it's a bit disgusting to do, and I can't really recommend 
 it.  My old meta.nameof module did the job.
 If you pass the module name as a template alias parameter, the fully 
 qualified name appears in the mangled name. You just need to demangle 
 it and extract the module name.


 
 Yikes!  Devious.  I guess that's why they pay you the big bucks. ... Or 
 should if they don't.


They don't. <g>
Actually, I'm not employed as a programmer. In fact, programming doesn't 
even always appear on my performance review. :(
I'm strongly considering a career switch...
Apr 28 2008
parent Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Don wrote:

 Yikes!  Devious.  I guess that's why they pay you the big bucks. ... 
 Or should if they don't.


 
 They don't. <g>
 Actually, I'm not employed as a programmer. In fact, programming doesn't 
 even always appear on my performance review. :(
 I'm strongly considering a career switch...


Graphics is fun.  Use all that nifty math stuff to make pretty pictures!

Better than writing better baby killing algorithms for some military 
contractor, anyway.

--bb
Apr 28 2008