[D-runtime] Why does druntime us .di files instead of .d?

Don Clugston dclugston at googlemail.com
Mon Jul 25 00:00:45 PDT 2011

On 25 July 2011 07:48, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 24 July 2011 22:02:08 Sean Kelly wrote:
>> In essence, the fix would be to have every function that is called by
>> compiler-generated code be exposed by object.di.  I suspect that this would
>> expose a good part of the now hidden compiler runtime code to the user,
>> which not every compiler writer may like doing.  Which raises an
>> interesting point.  Should CTFE support be consistent across compilers?
>> I'd be inclined to say so, but this appears to have interesting
>> implications in terms of how code generation occurs regarding language
>> features (array operations in particular).
> From the user's perspective, the fact that you can't iterate over a string
> with CTFE is a big problem (
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3512 ) regardless of what the
> reasons for it might be. It's hugely limiting.

It's a trivial issue. Don't worry about it. It'll be fixed in the next release.
The issue Sean raises about array operations is interesting. I think
DMD currently does array operations far too early; they probably
shouldn't be converted into function calls until all semantic passes
have completed.

More information about the D-runtime mailing list