DMD supports ranges, but druntime can't see them?

[Atila Neves]

On Thursday, 23 May 2019 at 11:00:13 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
> On Thursday, 23 May 2019 at 09:46:14 UTC, Timo Sintonen wrote:
>
> Walter and Andrei don't appear to like that idea.  What they 
> appear to propose is to make *all* runtime constructs 
> templates.  The runtime library is automatically imported, but 
> because it's all templates, there's nothing to link.  Users 
> opt-in to a feature by simply using it.  Either the instantiate 
> one of the runtime templates explicitly, or by using the 
> feature, the compiler lowers an expression to a runtime 
> template implicitly.

I would also favour this approach.

> I'm skeptical of that.  For example, do we need to declare 
> `class Object() {}` instead of `class Object {}` in the runtime 
> template library?  And think how that would need to scale all 
> the way down the call stack if each runtime implementation, and 
> constructs it uses, and each construct that those constructs 
> use all need to be templated.  And what would that do to 
> compile-times? Each module would have to re-compile all the 
> runtime stuff they utilize.  And what about the potential for 
> template bloat?

These are good questions.

I've never understood complaints about template bloat however. If 
the linker does its job, does it matter that individual object 
files are larger?