Windows API and druntime/Phobos
Jacob Carlborg
doob at me.com
Thu Jan 26 09:47:15 PST 2012
On 2012-01-26 15:46, Manu wrote:
> On 26 January 2012 16:45, Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com
> <mailto:turkeyman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On 26 January 2012 16:33, Marco Leise <Marco.Leise at gmx.de
> <mailto:Marco.Leise at gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> Am 26.01.2012, 05:08 Uhr, schrieb Brad Roberts
> <braddr at puremagic.com <mailto: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?
BTW, we don't have any OS specific bindings for OSes that also have
Posix bindings. I thinking mostly on Mac OS X, don't know if the other
OSes have anything useful.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list