• Trass3r (8/8) Jan 08 2012 There were some discussions about adding namespace support with somethin...
• Walter Bright (3/11) Jan 09 2012 I'm working as fast as I can :-)
• Zachary Lund (4/18) Jan 09 2012 How would this work exactly? Especially on Windows, libraries tend to
• Walter Bright (2/5) Jan 09 2012 Yes, as it is already.
• Trass3r (4/13) Jan 09 2012 Just wanted to point at it.
• deadalnix (2/10) Jan 09 2012 I was npot aware of this existing. This is awesome.
• Martin Nowak (6/14) Jan 09 2012 IMHO this patch is rather flawed
• Trass3r (1/3) Jan 09 2012 Hmm another difficulty is how to switch between mangling schemes.
• Zachary Lund (2/5) Jan 09 2012 Given Walter's comment, I don't think they plan to.
• Michel Fortin (12/17) Jan 09 2012 One thing that could be done is instead of the namespace argument, have
• Trass3r (5/14) Jan 09 2012 Interesting idea. But how to do it properly?
• deadalnix (3/19) Jan 10 2012 @mangled("encrypted klingon here") void foo();
• sclytrack (8/28) Jan 10 2012 It's like the vapi files. (Vala)
• Martin Nowak (7/27) Jan 10 2012 e
• Michel Fortin (17/39) Jan 10 2012 Another idea which would be much less verbose:
• Trass3r (2/15) Jan 10 2012 At least you could use extern(...) : and extern(...) {} this way.
• Trass3r (2/14) Jan 10 2012 And how is this any better than pragma??

Trass3r <un known.com> writes:

There were some discussions about adding namespace support with something  
like extern(C++, namespace) IIRC. Don't know the result though.

Then there's this small patch  
(http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4620) which allows very  
interesting stuff, even simple templates. It's rotting.

So what are the current plans?
Not being able to access C++ libraries directly is a real blocker. We  
should really try to improve the situation.

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 1/8/2012 7:54 PM, Trass3r wrote:
 There were some discussions about adding namespace support with something like
 extern(C++, namespace) IIRC. Don't know the result though.

 Then there's this small patch
 (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4620) which allows very
 interesting stuff, even simple templates. It's rotting.

Wanna do a pull request for it?

 So what are the current plans?
 Not being able to access C++ libraries directly is a real blocker. We should
 really try to improve the situation.

I'm working as fast as I can :-)

Zachary Lund <admin computerquip.com> writes:

How would this work exactly? Especially on Windows, libraries tend to 
not be compatible with each other. Will a C++ library be required to be 
compiled and linked with a certain toolset?

On 01/09/2012 03:16 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 1/8/2012 7:54 PM, Trass3r wrote:
 There were some discussions about adding namespace support with
 something like
 extern(C++, namespace) IIRC. Don't know the result though.

 Then there's this small patch
 (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4620) which allows very
 interesting stuff, even simple templates. It's rotting.

 Wanna do a pull request for it?

 So what are the current plans?
 Not being able to access C++ libraries directly is a real blocker. We
 should
 really try to improve the situation.

 I'm working as fast as I can :-)

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 1/9/2012 1:25 AM, Zachary Lund wrote:
 How would this work exactly? Especially on Windows, libraries tend to not be
 compatible with each other. Will a C++ library be required to be compiled and
 linked with a certain toolset?

Yes, as it is already.

Trass3r <un known.com> writes:

 Then there's this small patch
 (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4620) which allows very
 interesting stuff, even simple templates. It's rotting.

 Wanna do a pull request for it?

Just wanted to point at it.
I'd like to have some discussion. See Martin Nowak's post for example.
In the end we need a consistent way to interface with C++.


 So what are the current plans?
 Not being able to access C++ libraries directly is a real blocker. We  
 should
 really try to improve the situation.

 I'm working as fast as I can :-)

I do believe that :)

deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

Le 09/01/2012 04:54, Trass3r a écrit :
 There were some discussions about adding namespace support with
 something like extern(C++, namespace) IIRC. Don't know the result though.

 Then there's this small patch
 (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4620) which allows very
 interesting stuff, even simple templates. It's rotting.

 So what are the current plans?
 Not being able to access C++ libraries directly is a real blocker. We
 should really try to improve the situation.

I was npot aware of this existing. This is awesome.

"Martin Nowak" <dawg dawgfoto.de> writes:

Am 09.01.2012, 04:54 Uhr, schrieb Trass3r <un known.com>:

 There were some discussions about adding namespace support with  
 something like extern(C++, namespace) IIRC. Don't know the result though.

 Then there's this small patch  
 (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4620) which allows very  
 interesting stuff, even simple templates. It's rotting.

 So what are the current plans?
 Not being able to access C++ libraries directly is a real blocker. We  
 should really try to improve the situation.

IMHO this patch is rather flawed

  - Don't construct C++ classes as value types.
    You would need to know the exact size of the type
    and D can't preserve semantics for copy and assign.

  - D and C++ templates don't really map.

Trass3r <un known.com> writes:

 There were some discussions about adding namespace support with  
 something like extern(C++, namespace) IIRC. Don't know the result though.

Hmm another difficulty is how to switch between mangling schemes.

Zachary Lund <admin computerquip.com> writes:

On 01/09/2012 06:36 AM, Trass3r wrote:
 There were some discussions about adding namespace support with
 something like extern(C++, namespace) IIRC. Don't know the result though.

 Hmm another difficulty is how to switch between mangling schemes.

Given Walter's comment, I don't think they plan to.

Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:

On 2012-01-09 12:36:35 +0000, Trass3r <un known.com> said:

 There were some discussions about adding namespace support with  
 something like extern(C++, namespace) IIRC. Don't know the result 
 though.

 
 Hmm another difficulty is how to switch between mangling schemes.

One thing that could be done is instead of the namespace argument, have 
a mangled name argument. Then use CTFE to build the mangled name (if 
you want to).

This would also solve the problem we have on OS X where some C 
functions use a mangled name with a '$' in them thanks to the use of 
some GCC attribute in the system headers.

Or maybe it should be a pragma instead.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/

"Trass3r" <un known.com> writes:

On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 18:04:58 UTC, Michel Fortin wrote:
 Hmm another difficulty is how to switch between mangling 
 schemes.

 One thing that could be done is instead of the namespace 
 argument, have a mangled name argument. Then use CTFE to build 
 the mangled name (if you want to).

 This would also solve the problem we have on OS X where some C 
 functions use a mangled name with a '$' in them thanks to the 
 use of some GCC attribute in the system headers.

 Or maybe it should be a pragma instead.

Interesting idea. But how to do it properly?
A namespace or a class may have lots of functions and I really 
wouldn't want to be forced to write pragma(mangledName, 
gccmangle("Bla", ...)) before every declaration.

deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

Le 09/01/2012 19:19, Trass3r a écrit :
 On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 18:04:58 UTC, Michel Fortin wrote:
 Hmm another difficulty is how to switch between mangling schemes.

 One thing that could be done is instead of the namespace argument,
 have a mangled name argument. Then use CTFE to build the mangled name
 (if you want to).

 This would also solve the problem we have on OS X where some C
 functions use a mangled name with a '$' in them thanks to the use of
 some GCC attribute in the system headers.

 Or maybe it should be a pragma instead.

 Interesting idea. But how to do it properly?
 A namespace or a class may have lots of functions and I really wouldn't
 want to be forced to write pragma(mangledName, gccmangle("Bla", ...))
 before every declaration.

 mangled("encrypted klingon here") void foo();

Where encrypted klingon can be generated using CTFE.

sclytrack <sclytrack fake.com> writes:

On 01/10/2012 10:28 AM, deadalnix wrote:
 Le 09/01/2012 19:19, Trass3r a écrit :
 On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 18:04:58 UTC, Michel Fortin wrote:
 Hmm another difficulty is how to switch between mangling schemes.

 One thing that could be done is instead of the namespace argument,
 have a mangled name argument. Then use CTFE to build the mangled name
 (if you want to).

 This would also solve the problem we have on OS X where some C
 functions use a mangled name with a '$' in them thanks to the use of
 some GCC attribute in the system headers.

 Or maybe it should be a pragma instead.

 Interesting idea. But how to do it properly?
 A namespace or a class may have lots of functions and I really wouldn't
 want to be forced to write pragma(mangledName, gccmangle("Bla", ...))
 before every declaration.

  mangled("encrypted klingon here") void foo();

 Where encrypted klingon can be generated using CTFE.

It's like the vapi files. (Vala)

//encrypted klingon here.
[CCode (cname = "gtk_cell_area_class_find_cell_property")]		
public class unowned GLib.ParamSpec find_cell_property (string 
property_name);
//alias here		

With the alias in D you can use the original.

"Martin Nowak" <dawg dawgfoto.de> writes:

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:28:54 +0100, deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> wrot=
e:

 Le 09/01/2012 19:19, Trass3r a =C3=A9crit :
 On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 18:04:58 UTC, Michel Fortin wrote:
 Hmm another difficulty is how to switch between mangling schemes.

 One thing that could be done is instead of the namespace argument,
 have a mangled name argument. Then use CTFE to build the mangled nam=



e
 (if you want to).

 This would also solve the problem we have on OS X where some C
 functions use a mangled name with a '$' in them thanks to the use of=



 some GCC attribute in the system headers.

 Or maybe it should be a pragma instead.

 Interesting idea. But how to do it properly?
 A namespace or a class may have lots of functions and I really wouldn=


't
 want to be forced to write pragma(mangledName, gccmangle("Bla", ...))=


 before every declaration.

  mangled("encrypted klingon here") void foo();

 Where encrypted klingon can be generated using CTFE.

Quite nice.
It also makes pretty clear that one is responsible to
avoid symbol collisions.

Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:

On 2012-01-10 09:28:54 +0000, deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> said:

 Le 09/01/2012 19:19, Trass3r a écrit :
 On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 18:04:58 UTC, Michel Fortin wrote:
 Hmm another difficulty is how to switch between mangling schemes.

 
 One thing that could be done is instead of the namespace argument,
 have a mangled name argument. Then use CTFE to build the mangled name
 (if you want to).
 
 This would also solve the problem we have on OS X where some C
 functions use a mangled name with a '$' in them thanks to the use of
 some GCC attribute in the system headers.
 
 Or maybe it should be a pragma instead.

 
 Interesting idea. But how to do it properly?
 A namespace or a class may have lots of functions and I really wouldn't
 want to be forced to write pragma(mangledName, gccmangle("Bla", ...))
 before every declaration.

 
  mangled("encrypted klingon here") void foo();
 
 Where encrypted klingon can be generated using CTFE.

Another idea which would be much less verbose:

	extern(C++, gccmangle)
	void foo();

Here, gccmangle is a CTFE-capable function that'd be called like this:

	gccmangle("foo");

So if you need a namespace argument, just add one:

	extern(C++, gccmangle, "bar::baz")
	void foo();

which would call the function like this to get the mangled name:

	gccmangle("foo","bar::baz");

The syntax doesn't sound quite right to me, hopefully someone can make 
it better.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/

"Trass3r" <un known.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 10 January 2012 at 12:09:14 UTC, Michel Fortin wrote:
 Another idea which would be much less verbose:

 	extern(C++, gccmangle)
 	void foo();

 Here, gccmangle is a CTFE-capable function that'd be called 
 like this:

 	gccmangle("foo");

 So if you need a namespace argument, just add one:

 	extern(C++, gccmangle, "bar::baz")
 	void foo();

 which would call the function like this to get the mangled name:

 	gccmangle("foo","bar::baz");

 The syntax doesn't sound quite right to me, hopefully someone 
 can make it better.

At least you could use extern(...) : and extern(...) {} this way.

"Trass3r" <un known.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 10 January 2012 at 09:27:03 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
 Le 09/01/2012 19:19, Trass3r a écrit :
 On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 18:04:58 UTC, Michel Fortin wrote:
 Or maybe it should be a pragma instead.

 Interesting idea. But how to do it properly?
 A namespace or a class may have lots of functions and I really 
 wouldn't
 want to be forced to write pragma(mangledName, 
 gccmangle("Bla", ...))
 before every declaration.

  mangled("encrypted klingon here") void foo();

 Where encrypted klingon can be generated using CTFE.

And how is this any better than pragma??