www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [WORK] Backtick dat code?

reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Now that Adam's work on transforming `code` into $(D code) is in, who'd 
want to write the glorious sed --in-place expression that transforms 
Phobos? Or should we just leave it for future code and occasional 
refactoring? -- Andrei
Jan 16 2015
next sibling parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 20:50:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 Now that Adam's work on transforming `code` into $(D code) is 
 in, who'd want to write the glorious sed --in-place expression 
 that transforms Phobos? Or should we just leave it for future 
 code and occasional refactoring? -- Andrei


Does it support things like: `log n$(SUBSCRIPT c)` ?

Here's my go at it:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2877
Jan 16 2015
next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 1/16/15 12:58 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 20:50:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Now that Adam's work on transforming `code` into $(D code) is in,
 who'd want to write the glorious sed --in-place expression that
 transforms Phobos? Or should we just leave it for future code and
 occasional refactoring? -- Andrei


 Does it support things like: `log n$(SUBSCRIPT c)` ?


That should work as long as all is on the same line.


 Here's my go at it:
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2877


Thanks! Please make sure you test things.


Andrei
Jan 16 2015
prev sibling parent Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On 16/01/15 21:58, Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Friday, 16 January 2015 at 20:50:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Now that Adam's work on transforming `code` into $(D code) is in, who'd want
 to write the glorious sed --in-place expression that transforms Phobos? Or
 should we just leave it for future code and occasional refactoring? -- Andrei


 Does it support things like: `log n$(SUBSCRIPT c)` ?


Great to hear that Adam's feature landed :-)

Along similar lines, it would be really nice if there were some way in Ddoc of 
indicating, "This next bit of ddoc contains no macros nor any Ddoc special 
characters and should be taken literally as is."

I don't know if this fits with the design, but suppose that ``something`` were 
to be taken as "something should be interpreted literally as-is".  So then,
```this_bit_of_code() { ... }``` would be interpreted as code that internally 
contains no Ddoc macros or special characters, while ``this would be 
literally-interpreted text`` and `this_code() { $(B can_contain;) ddoc_macros;
}`.
Jan 17 2015
prev sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:50:21PM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:

 Now that Adam's work on transforming `code` into $(D code) is in,
 who'd want to write the glorious sed --in-place expression that
 transforms Phobos? Or should we just leave it for future code and
 occasional refactoring? --


[...]

How does it handle code fragments that use `...` literals?


T

-- 
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Use your hands...
Jan 16 2015
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 1/16/15 1:59 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:50:21PM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:

 Now that Adam's work on transforming `code` into $(D code) is in,
 who'd want to write the glorious sed --in-place expression that
 transforms Phobos? Or should we just leave it for future code and
 occasional refactoring? --


 [...]

 How does it handle code fragments that use `...` literals?


Adam? Or just try it. -- Andrei
Jan 16 2015