A gentle critque..

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

Chad J wrote:

> 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.

And listen to the uproar when it then is to be removed!

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi