Bounty for -minimal compiler flag

[Daniel Murphy]

"1100110"  wrote in message news:ldkuku$1sgt$1 at digitalmars.com...

> I don't think we'll ever please everyone here.  All I'm really trying to 
> do by specifying the name is prevent some cutesy annoying name.

It's pretty hard to get a pull request in with a silly switch name, so I 
wouldn't worry too much about that.

> I'd be fine with the switch being name -nodruntime, and honestly I like 
> that better.

Me too!

> >> Has to fulfill Walter's original post. (listed below)
> >> Has to split the separate parts into different flags as well as
> >> -minimal(-nogc, -nomoduleinfo, etc. Naming is left to the implementer).
> >
> > Make a enhancement report on bugzilla with the details.
>
> I will as soon as I iron a few wrinkles.  I need to figure out if typeinfo 
> should be a part of this as well.

I strongly recommend putting only goals in the enhancement request, and 
avoiding implementation details (and especially syntax) whenever possible.

Eg Struct equality requires typeinfo, but and implementation that changed it 
to use templates instead would probably be fine.  The typeinfo part is 
irrelevant here, you just want to avoid having to link druntime in.

Specifying individual flags is also not recommended, because a better 
interface might emerge and then the issue of whether the ER is completed 
gets messy.  Instead saying "I want a way to disable just the GC" avoids 
this.

Finally, putting many things in one request discourages partial fixes, makes 
discussion harder to follow, and could get complicated with a bounty 
involved. (what if two people implement different parts etc)  It would be 
better (IMO) to split each atomic feature into its own ER and cross-link 
them, even if this means splitting the bounty across them.