CTFE and DI: The Crossroads of D

Adam Wilson flyboynw at gmail.com
Thu May 10 11:25:04 PDT 2012


On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:22:36 -0700, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr at gmx.ch> wrote:

> On 05/10/2012 08:15 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:10:15 -0700, David Gileadi
>> <gileadis at nspmgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/10/12 11:01 AM, Adam Wilson wrote:
>>>> It does require some semantic information. And the solution I've seen
>>>> seen most talked about here is some kind of attribute similar to @pure
>>>> that tells the compiler to include the implementation in the DI file.
>>>
>>> I may be off-base here, but this strikes me as a good case for a
>>> pragma. No?
>>
>> Well, it's needs to be at a function level to be useful.
>>
>
> pragmas can apply to declarations.
>
> The syntax is
>
> pragma(identifier,...) Declaration
>
> (Where Declaration can be the empty declaration, ';')
>
> pragma(keepImplementation) void foo(){ ... }

That could work, although it's more typing than I personally want to do.  
It depends on how much of the pragma the DI generator actually sees though  
... you'd be surprised at what it doesn't see.

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list