Windows API and druntime/Phobos

[Manu]

On 26 January 2012 16:45, Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26 January 2012 16:33, Marco Leise <Marco.Leise at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 26.01.2012, 05:08 Uhr, schrieb Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com>:
>>
>>  On 1/24/2012 8:48 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> The level of support for the Windows API in druntime and Phobos is
>>>> pretty low.
>>>> As I understand it, Windows users are pretty much forced to use
>>>> http://www.dsource.org/**projects/bindings/browser/**trunk/win32<http://www.dsource.org/projects/bindings/browser/trunk/win32>if they need
>>>> comprehensive Win32 API bindings. druntime seems to be trying to define
>>>> all of
>>>> the OS-specific stuff like that, but on top of it missing much of it,
>>>> in the
>>>> case of the Win32 API, that's a _lot_ of functions, and I don't know if
>>>> we
>>>> want to put that much in druntime. So, the question is, how do we want
>>>> to
>>>> support the Win32 API in druntime and Phobos?
>>>>
>>>> Do we want to put all of the Win32 API bindings in druntime? If not,
>>>> then do
>>>> we want to put them in Phobos? Or do we just want to send Windows
>>>> developers
>>>> to a 3rd party library like the Win32 bindings project on dsource?
>>>> Given that
>>>> they're OS bindings, I would _think_ that we'd want them in druntime,
>>>> but I
>>>> don't know.
>>>>
>>>> Regardless, this is one of those issues which frequently plagues D
>>>> Windows
>>>> developers, and we really should at least get a plan together as to how
>>>> we
>>>> want to handle it.
>>>>
>>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P.S. A related pull request: https://github.com/D-**Programming-<https://github.com/D-Programming->
>>>> Language/druntime/pull/139
>>>>
>>>
>>> We've got the posix api set in the runtime, not just the subset that the
>>> runtime or phobos needs.  IMHO, windows should
>>> follow that pattern.  It might be large from a number of lines of
>>> declarations standpoint, but who cares.
>>>
>>
>> I tend to agree.
>>
>
> I wouldn't object to having guaranteed access to winapi in druntime... but
> it is pretty big. In the interest of following the pattern with posix, it
> makes sense to me.
> But I'm also not allergic to it being a completely separate library, as
> long as it's distributed with the windows toolchain. I probably wouldn't
> want to see it in std, that makes no sense to me. druntime makes some sense
> (since parts of druntime depend on windows calls) if people think that's
> where it should be.
>
> What is the reasoning for putting the posix api in druntime? That seems
> like a weird choice to me... it's nothing to do with druntime, except for a
> couple of dependencies perhaps.
>

Also, WinRT is upon us... I intend to start writing WinRT programs asap.
Ahould that go in druntime too? Are we opening a floodgate?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120126/1ed20dfd/attachment-0001.html>