Bounty for -minimal compiler flag

[Denis Koroskin]

On Sunday, 16 February 2014 at 05:27:07 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:53:19 -0500, Denis Koroskin 
> <2korden at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, 16 February 2014 at 02:57:25 UTC, Steven 
>> Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> I think that the best and quickest approach at this time is 
>>> to disallow classes. They are not trivial. If we can figure 
>>> out a clean way to add them back, then they can be allowed 
>>> later.
>>>
>>
>> Note that the same applies to classes with ARC (or other 
>> reference counting mechanism).
>
> Right, but ARC classes would be marked differently or derive 
> from a different base. Like extern(C++) classes (which actually 
> should work under minimal D).
>
> What we are debating is allowing just plain-old D classes could 
> compile and be used under minimal D. I don't think that's a 
> good idea.
>
> -Steve

Oh, sorry, I thought the were discussing extern(C++) classes 
support -- those are too GC'd by default so compiled with and 
without GC require different designs and implementations.

Plain objects require Object.d, core.Mutex, ModuleInfo, TypeInfo 
and a lot of other things to support, and as such most likely 
impossible to implement preserving compatibility with "full D".