Compilation strategy

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-12-17 02:10, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> Given that .di don't work with inlining or CTFE, I'd consider them to be a
> very poor solution. You're seriously impairing yourself if you use them. It's
> pretty much BS that corporations insist on header files to hide implementation,
> since it really doesn't work, but if we're going to be forced to a have a
> solution which tries to hide implementation to make folks like that happy, we
> could at least have one that doesn't cripple the language like .di files do. It
> may not truly hide the implementation any better than .di files do, but at
> least it would allow us to still use the language properly.
>
> I'm not expecting this problem to be fixed any time soon (we have far higher
> priorites), but I really do think that in the long run .di files should be
> deprecated in favor of a binary solution which doesn't stop things like
> inlining or CTFE from working.

If a function needs to be template, inline or CTFE it can be manually 
put in the .di file. I assume that will work.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg