boost crowd.

[Maxim Fomin]

2011/11/28 Timon Gehr <timon.gehr at gmx.ch>:
> On 11/28/2011 09:01 AM, so wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:44:23 +0200, Walter Bright
>> <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/27/2011 4:44 PM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "D has a true module system that supports separate compilation and
>>>> generates and uses module summaries (highbrowspeak for "header files")
>>>> automatically from source, so you don't need to worry about
>>>> maintaining redundant files separately, unless you really wish to, in
>>>> which case you can. Yep, that stops that nag right in mid-sentence."
>>>>
>>>> But it is not true...
>>>
>>> How is it not true?
>>
>> I don't know if .di generation from .d or .h is any good or bad,
>> but the comparison of auto-generated .di files to hand crafted .h files
>> doesn't make sense.
>
> Nobody stops you from hand crafting *.di files.
>

And what sense is in hand crafting .di files? What would you do different?
Remove method definitions/private members?