[GSoC] Header Generation for C/C++

[Manu]

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:41 PM Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 20:01, Manu via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 7:29 AM Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d
> > <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 15:40, Eduard Staniloiu via Digitalmars-d
> > > <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have the following question: Can we use C++11 or would that
> > > > break GDC / LDC? With C++11 we could use `enum class` which would
> > > > solve this nicely. The issue with `enum class` is that it will
> > > > break code since not the fields need to be prefixed with the enum
> > > > name.
> > > >
> > > > But still, what do you think? What are the pros and cons of
> > > > supporting/using C++11?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No you cannot use C++11, yes it will break GDC bootstrap.
> >
> > This needs to be optional. I can't NOT use C++11 for instance...
> > We could read the --extern-std flag to drive the output perhaps?
>
> I assumed the question was only about dmd headers, and not the tool itself.
>
> Naturally, there should be a way to configure the style or language
> standards you want the code to be outputted in (and this is another
> reason why I think a standalone app is better).

A stand-alone app would be unbelievably disappointing. I think I would
not use this if it were a stand-alone app; it would have failed at its
entire value proposition for us. We would stick with writing C++ code
and D as an afterthought because there would be no friction advantage
this way around.
The point is to simplify the build environment, not make it a whole lot worse :/