D as A Better C?

[John Colvin]

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 14:36:21 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On 13 February 2014 00:25, John Colvin 
> <john.loughran.colvin at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 14:15:55 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 February 2014 16:11, eles <eles at eles.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 03:28:57 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On 12 February 2014 12:11, Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  On 12 February 2014 05:43, Walter Bright 
>>>>> <newshound2 at digitalmars.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>  I've changed my mind. Depending on a functional 
>>>> link-stripper sucks.
>>>>> I think it's definitely useful, although I think it should 
>>>>> be
>>>>> implemented
>>>>> as a suite of flags, not just a single one. Sure, a 
>>>>> convenience flag can
>>>>> be
>>>>> offered, but as an implementation detail, it should be a 
>>>>> suite of flags.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I like this and I also think providing compiler switches 
>>>> (ie. without
>>>> naming the subset) as being acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> However, what if I would need those switches for just one 
>>>> particular
>>>> module and the functions therein? How to compile only those 
>>>> modules with
>>>> the switches?
>>>>
>>>> Only through manual compile/linking?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes, exactly as with C++ today. It shouldn't be an unfamiliar 
>>> problem to
>>> most.
>>>
>>
>> How does that work with templates across modules?
>>
>
> I'm not sure how that would affect anything? Only a couple of 
> runtime
> things would be unavailable, and ideally individually 
> unavailable on
> different flags.

What I mean is: template in module A that needs one of these 
flags is instantiated from module B that needs to *not* have that 
flag.