A gentle critque..

[Chad J]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Chad J wrote:
> 
>>I have even more trouble believing that current D compilers shouldn't
>>support C plus plus integration just because it might make C plus plus
>>compilation a required capability of a D compiler.
> 
> 
> Take a look inside one of the STL header files - how can one access it
> without being a C compiler?

Agreed.  You need C plus plus compilation ability to use C plus plus
headers as they are.

What I'm talking about though is this notion that DMD supporting C plus
plus compilation somehow implies that every D compiler created from then
on will also support C plus plus compilation.  I don't agree with that.
 I think it reeks of fallacy.

I'd say that C plus plus support for the first couple D compilers would
make D more likely to become mainstream or become mainstream faster.
The objective is no different than that of an external tool that
translates C headers into D headers, but it may be easier to do since it
puts a fully functional C plus plus parser at your disposal (at least I
think it does).  Just make sure to clearly mark the C plus plus
capabilities as something DMD specific, a bundled tool really, and
everything should be dandy.  Same goes for GDC if it were to add such a
faculty.

Don't make it part of the spec, but make it part of the toolset.  At
least while C plus plus is still popular.