Closed mvdan closed 1 year ago
I can see the appeal of having a built-in println
function or statement, but that's tricky. For example, Wuffs-the-language has not needed a string type so far (other than for error messages), or varargs, whether variant in number or in type, especially as every call argument is currently explicitly named: it's foo(a:x, b:y)
not just foo(x, y)
.
Instead, I've been adding printf
s to the generated C code. It's crude, but it suffices. That's why, in gen/c/std/*.c
, there's
// Uncomment this #include for printf-debugging.
// #include <stdio.h>
If you're using the wuffs
command line tool, such as wuffs test
, be aware of flags like -ccompilers
, -focus
and -skipgen
. Run wuffs test -?
for some brief documentation.
As for packages outside of std
, I definitely want to support that one day, but it hasn't been the highest priority thing to work on yet.
You can run wuffs-c
directly, or you can fork wuffs and add your own code under std
. Maybe a symlink would work, if you're just playing around and don't care yet about version control, I haven't tried. Yeah, the workflow isn't ideal. Sorry.
For example, Wuffs-the-language has not needed a string type so far (other than for error messages), or varargs
That's a good point. I'm afraid I don't have a good, specific proposal of what I would add to the language, then. Varargs wouldn't be necessary, but "empty interface" and string types would still be necessary for a println func to be useful.
Is there any way that we could allow printfs in wuffs, as opposed to a print/println? For example, forgetting the syntax for a moment, suppose I could do:
//wuffs:c printf("length = %d", length);
That is, telling the wuffs-c generator to include a line in the C output at this position. Then, if I were generating/testing Go, I'd instead write something like //wuffs:go fmt.Println("length", length)
.
I realise including this in the language as a formal feature can get ugly; it doesn't need to be guaranteed to work forever, much like Go's print/println. And I also imagine that the include dance with printf
in C might get tricky. But it seems to me like a possible way to introduce debug prints without having to worry about Wuff's syntax and language features, nor with modifying generated code by hand.
A different version of this idea is a println; //wuffs:println("length =", length)
, which would get translated to printf
, fmt.Println
, or whatever the language equivalent is. Narrower and perhaps simpler to implement reliably, but also not as powerful as "insert any C statement here".
If you're using the wuffs command line tool, such as wuffs test
If only I could without hacks :)
Yeah, the workflow isn't ideal. Sorry.
Oh, that is fine - wuffs-c
is not hard to use. I think a "hello world" example using it, complete with how to build a working binary, would be very useful though. It took me a good half hour to figure that out, when the solution wasn't really complex. I just had to dig through the codebase, which is a bit unnecessary. I'll open an issue about it.
I'm trying to play with wuffs, and something I miss from coding in Go or other languages is the ability to add debug prints. Something akin to Go's
println
would be great, for example.I realise that I can do this via the generated C code, but that's not as straightforward. And, once wuffs adds support for other languages, debugging will be different depending on what language you're generating.
Any ideas or suggestions?
Also, as a drop-by question - how is one supposed to use the
wuffs
tool for little wuffs packages not part ofwuffs/std
? I haven't figured how to getwuffs gen
to work with that, so I'm just usingwuffs-c
. I presume that's the best I can do at the moment.