DI Generation Needs your Help!

[Jakob Ovrum]

On Monday, 19 December 2011 at 21:04:28 UTC, so wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:24:18 +0200, Adam Wilson 
> <flyboynw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So the consensus is to keep all private members/imports/etc?
>
> Ideally to get most out of the auto generation of di files (by 
> definition of module system) we need to strip ALL private stuff.
> Only this way we can say the automation is on par with 
> handcrafting.
> But if it does not look doable somehow, we can always handcraft 
> them (which i'll generally prefer),

Private members can still be used from public templates and 
whatnot. You can't take them out unless you can statically proved 
all references within the same .di to that private member was 
removed in the stripping process.

foo.d
------

private i = 42;

// Is a public template, has to be left in
void bar()()
{
    /* Uses 'i' */
}

void baz()
{
    /* Also uses 'i' */
}
------

foo.di
------

void bar()()
{
    /* Still uses 'i', where did it go!? */
}

void baz(); // Fine, no longer need 'i'
------

Also, on a side note, function parameters can use types from 
private imports too. Be it function, data or import, it has to be 
left in even if private.