CTFE and DI: The Crossroads of D

[foobar]

On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 20:14:32 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:57:46 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe 
> <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The real WTF is we use .di files for druntime in the
>> first place. It is performance sensitive and open source.
>>
>> We should be using the actual sources for inlining, ctfe,
>> etc. anyway.
>>
>> Let's not torpedo the .di patch's value for just phobos.
>
> I agree (although not generating .di files does not fix all the 
> problems of inlining and ctfe -- there are many stubbed 
> functions even in the .d files).
>
> In my opinion, .di generation should by default generate 
> fully-stripped code except for templates.  If you want 
> functions to be CTFE-able, don't use auto-generated .di files 
> to import them.
>
> -Steve

This makes sense.
So this means the datetime example would fail to compile when 
using druntime's .di files. This should be emphasized in the 
spec/docs to minimize the chance for gotchas for users.

We could add an exception to this rule by tagging functions with 
e.g. "export". What do you think?