On Friday, 1 March 2019 at 11:38:51 UTC, BoQsc wrote:
On Friday, 1 March 2019 at 09:27:33 UTC, Cym13 wrote:
On Friday, 1 March 2019 at 09:00:43 UTC, BoQsc wrote:
I've installed D compiler, and when i try to run a D script
with filename without an extension/file type named: program
via: ./program
I'm getting and error:
vaidas@SATELLITE-L855:~/Desktop$ ./program
Error: module `program` is in file './program.d' which cannot
be read
import path[0] = .
import path[1] = /snap/dmd/49/bin/../import/druntime
import path[2] = /snap/dmd/49/bin/../import/phobos
Failed: ["/snap/dmd/49/bin/dmd", "-v", "-o-", "./program.d",
"-I."]
Now, when I rename my scirpt file : program
To: program.d
and execute it by: ./program.d
I no longer have an error.
Is this an intended behaviour?
In such questions it's important to show your shebang since
that's what runs your script.
Given your symptoms I guess you're using the following:
#!/bin/env rdmd
And indeed rdmd won't call your script if it doesn't have the
proper extension.
Try using this instead:
#!/bin/dmd -run
The shebang I used: #!/usr/bin/env rdmd
I was visiting Dlang Tour and that's where I've got an example
of shebang usage, directly from there:
https://tour.dlang.org/tour/en/welcome/run-d-program-locally#/on-the-fly-compilation-with-rdmd
The shebang you suggested actually works perfectly:
#!/bin/dmd -run
"And indeed rdmd won't call your script if it doesn't have the
proper extension."
Then why does Dlang Tour includes shebang: #!/usr/bin/env rdmd
Instead of the one you mentioned, that is fool proof.
(#!/bin/dmd -run)
Is that an error/mistake in Dlang Tour guide?
Frankly using rdmd is closer to being fool-proof, you just
haven't hit the corner cases yet :)
I'd either get used to having scripts with a .d extension or make
an alias or a quick wrapper in shell and call it "program":
#!/bin/sh
exec rdmd /path/to/program.d "$@"
It's not exactly a mistake, it's just not that important to most
people I guess. And as your program grows you're likely to take
the habit to compile it and work with the binary directly anyway.
