ModuleInfo, factories, and unittesting

[bitwise via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 22:55:30 UTC, rikki cattermole 
wrote:
> - -typeinfo=low/low-min/normal/high/none
>   None is pretty much -betterC
>   Low would be unittests + module constructors
>   Low-min would be like low but with only the fields that is 
> needed
>   Normal is what we have now more or less
>   High of course includes all the goodies like class fields and 
> methods reflection
> - Full class + struct + union symbol reflection, so fields 
> uda's ext.


IMO, this seems like too much. I think none/minimal/full would be 
easier, where minimal would be equivalent to what's currently 
available right now. My specific concern is compatibility between 
compiled objects and knowing what symbols to expect. Also, just 
keeping the question of which level to use simple. If one object 
file was compiled without unittests, for example, a project as a 
whole could pass without error, but actually be broken..couldn't 
it?