|
|
|
Home » Developing U++ » U++ Developers corner » Include option for specific package
| Re: Include option for specific package [message #21983 is a reply to message #21944] |
Sun, 14 June 2009 00:58   |
|
|
Hello Mirek,
I added the minimal changes for future: include options for specific package, I hope it is correct. Can you check my changes?
Dirrectory path is same as files <directory>{\<directory>}
Ex: lib\common
If is accepted I can add more wizard things(select directory path dialog, set full path or short path).
Include order, I should add first UPP directory (GetVar("UPP"), after then include directories by package uses and after then add global include path.
The source code is written very clear and professional. Thank you to U++ authors and contribuitors! Of course, exist things that can be optimized (in my point of view)!
I was attached only changed files.
Any suggestions is welcome!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Include option for specific package [message #22040 is a reply to message #22039] |
Mon, 15 June 2009 09:56 |
|
|
| luzr wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 10:15 |
Well, to make things sure...
Is all this about
#include <header.h>
in existing code? (instead of #include "header.h" or something like that).
I am not quite sure about it either. In ANY CASE, it should NOT accept absolute paths, or at least, warn about them.
Mirek
|
I agree with you about warn when set full path in include option by package.
Another question is where need to add include option by package by order?
After GetVar("UPP")?
can I add it in svn with all changes requested?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Include option for specific package [message #22178 is a reply to message #22164] |
Tue, 23 June 2009 10:14 |
|
|
| luzr wrote on Sun, 21 June 2009 20:22 |
I have added "Add to include path" file option that hopefully solves this problem.
IMO, it is less faulty than adding include paths for package and, in the end, maybe even slightly easier to use.
Mirek
|
For me, I spent minim 1hour to understand how it works. It is not so simple to understand, I thing that you have little complicated realization. I do not know how the new u++ developers will acomodate with this.
May be I'm single so slowly.
I would like to know other opinions!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Include option for specific package [message #22184 is a reply to message #22182] |
Tue, 23 June 2009 13:18 |
|
|
| luzr wrote on Tue, 23 June 2009 13:30 |
Add any include file you want to include, or take .cpp file in the same dir (in many cases, you will want to have it in package anyway), use "Add to include path" for this include.
|
I thing that this realization is not transparent, especially for new u++ developers.
Is more simple to add maximum 4 directories of include path that find in tens or hundreds source (*.cpp, *h) files if exist "include path by package".
Maybe we need to vote what is good and what is bad between our realizations. If is any new proposes, it is very good.
[Updated on: Tue, 23 June 2009 13:19] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Include option for specific package [message #22185 is a reply to message #21906] |
Tue, 23 June 2009 14:36 |
Sender Ghost
Messages: 301
Registered: November 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| tojocky wrote on Wed, 10 June 2009 10:39 |
Hello All,
I didn't find if exist a method for set include option for specific package.
I thing that it is a possibility to add "compiler option" in package organizer, but if exists more explicit method which i do not know, please tell me.
|
Hello, Ion.
I think, you can achieve this by using new Assembly. Just add necessary include directories to Package nest.
For example, we have MyApps assembly:
Package nest: C:\MyApps;C:\upp\uppsrc
Output directory: C:\upp\out
Assembly name: MyApps
In building process TheIDE will add directories from Package nest to include search path ("-I") before directories configured in Build methods for specific compiler. Example for MSC9:
"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\Vc\Bin\cl.exe" -nologo -W3 -GR -c \
-I"C:\MyApps" -I"C:\upp\uppsrc" \
-I"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\Vc\Include" \
-I"C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v6.1\Include"
[Updated on: Tue, 23 June 2009 14:40] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Include option for specific package [message #22187 is a reply to message #22185] |
Tue, 23 June 2009 15:39 |
|
|
| Sender Ghost wrote on Tue, 23 June 2009 15:36 |
Hello, Ion.
I think, you can achieve this by using new Assembly. Just add necessary include directories to Package nest.
For example, we have MyApps assembly:
Package nest: C:\MyApps;C:\upp\uppsrc
Output directory: C:\upp\out
Assembly name: MyApps
In building process TheIDE will add directories from Package nest to include search path ("-I") before directories configured in Build methods for specific compiler. Example for MSC9:
"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\Vc\Bin\cl.exe" -nologo -W3 -GR -c \
-I"C:\MyApps" -I"C:\upp\uppsrc" \
-I"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\Vc\Include" \
-I"C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v6.1\Include"
|
The goal is to optimize include option!
I have MyApp directory, that contains more packages.
Only few packages use specific include (actual is only xlslib).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Include option for specific package [message #22193 is a reply to message #22187] |
Tue, 23 June 2009 17:25 |
Sender Ghost
Messages: 301
Registered: November 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In my current opinion, you just want to use unsuitable tool.
Packages are independent from absolute paths, therefore they are portable.
If you saw U++ code organization you can understand how your code must be organized to accomplish U++ modules approach.
Assembly "knows" about absolute paths and where to find Packages (which is disguised form of include search path directories for compiler). So, changes for paths should be on Assembly level.
I suggest you to use new Assembly, e.g. XlsLibApps with following options:
Package nest: C:\XlsLibApps;C:\XlsLibApps\lib\src\oledoc; \
C:\XlsLibApps\lib\src\xlslib;C:\XlsLibApps\lib\src\common; \
C:\XlsLibApps\lib\src\data;C:\MyApps;C:\upp\uppsrc
Output directory: C:\upp\out
Assembly name: XlsLibApps
to Mirek:
You can improve selection of Package nest directories or just add new option (e.g. ArrayCtrl) for include search paths.
Edit:
Anyway, we all have suitable solutions for this problem. I just want to show another point of view.
[Updated on: Tue, 23 June 2009 17:49] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Include option for specific package [message #22194 is a reply to message #22193] |
Tue, 23 June 2009 20:06 |
 |
mirek
Messages: 13975
Registered: November 2005
|
Ultimate Member |
|
|
| Sender Ghost wrote on Tue, 23 June 2009 11:25 |
In my current opinion, you just want to use unsuitable tool.
Packages are independent from absolute paths, therefore they are portable.
If you saw U++ code organization you can understand how your code must be organized to accomplish U++ modules approach.
Assembly "knows" about absolute paths and where to find Packages (which is disguised form of include search path directories for compiler). So, changes for paths should be on Assembly level.
I suggest you to use new Assembly, e.g. XlsLibApps with following options:
Package nest: C:\XlsLibApps;C:\XlsLibApps\lib\src\oledoc; \
C:\XlsLibApps\lib\src\xlslib;C:\XlsLibApps\lib\src\common; \
C:\XlsLibApps\lib\src\data;C:\MyApps;C:\upp\uppsrc
Output directory: C:\upp\out
Assembly name: XlsLibApps
to Mirek:
You can improve selection of Package nest directories or just add new option (e.g. ArrayCtrl) for include search paths.
|
Actually, the intended place for include path is build method...
Anyway, the problem we are trying to solve here is that when adapting existing code as U++ package (in this case, existing library capable of parsing XLS files), you have to solve the issue that sources can have its own directory structure, including special folders for .h.
Up to now, we usually fixed the issue by editing sources (#include <foo/bar.h> -> #include "bar.h"). Anyway, I have to agree that it can get long in teeth over time.
That is why I agree there is some problem to solve. But based on experience with "Add any file" to package, I would like to stay clean of any form hinting to the idea that the package is the place to define include path...
Mirek
|
|
|
|
| Re: Include option for specific package [message #22197 is a reply to message #22191] |
Tue, 23 June 2009 21:15 |
|
|
| luzr wrote on Tue, 23 June 2009 18:09 |
Well, I am sorry to be stubborn, I am just STRONGLY opposed to the idea that package should have any explicit include paths.
Mirek
|
By "explicit include paths" you mean full path?
If Yes, I can add possibility to restrict to set full path for the include package include option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Include option for specific package [message #22199 is a reply to message #22198] |
Wed, 24 June 2009 00:40 |
 |
koldo
Messages: 3356
Registered: August 2008
|
Senior Veteran |
|
|
I think there have been misunderstandings 
| luzr wrote on Tue, 23 June 2009 23:26 |
| tojocky wrote on Tue, 23 June 2009 15:15 |
| luzr wrote on Tue, 23 June 2009 18:09 |
Well, I am sorry to be stubborn, I am just STRONGLY opposed to the idea that package should have any explicit include paths.
Mirek
|
By "explicit include paths" you mean full path?
|
Any path But package based path is more tolerable...
Mirek
|
Have I heard that before ? 
| Quote: |
I think that the Ion proposal included below is the simpler from an user point of view using, as Ion does, relative paths like "lib/src/common".
|
... relative paths under package directory.
The thing I did not want to do was precisely this:
| Quote: |
Up to now, we usually fixed the issue by editing sources (#include <foo/bar.h> -> #include "bar.h").
|
... as I prefer not to modify library sources, but for "force majeure".
I think Ion and me agree from the beginning that for a wrapper, the library sources tree begins from package folder.
We only want to say the compiler how to look for #includes there.
Best regards
Koldo
Best regards
Iñaki
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 19 20:04:38 CEST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02866 seconds
|
|
|
Members
Pages
Help
Register
Login
Home
