core.stdcpp

[Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:05:19 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 00:32:20 UTC, Mike wrote:
>> I believe druntime's scope should be reduced to simply 
>> implementing the language, not creating an OS or library API.  
>> That's what phobos and DUB are for.
>>
>> I'm asking this community to consider setting a new precedent 
>> for druntime:  reduce the scope to just the language 
>> implementation, encapsulate and isolate the platform specific 
>> logic (e.g. the ports - see 11666), and deport the artificial 
>> dependencies to phobos or other libraries.
>
> What do you think about following compromise:
>
> 1) C bindings are defined in spec to be optional
> 2) They are still kept in druntime repo but declared an 
> implementation detail
> 3) C bindings are defined to be mandatory in Phobos - if Phobos 
> is used with druntime that does not provide C bindings, it must 
> expose ones of its own.
>
> It effectively keeps existing layout but moves from a 
> specification to implementation detail making binding-free 
> druntime 100% legal D implementation.

By "C bindings" do you really mean "C/C++ bindings" given the 
context of this thread?