[dmd-beta] 64 bit beta for Linux
Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Sun Feb 6 18:27:38 PST 2011
On Sunday 06 February 2011 18:05:27 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Again, all we need to do is use a different macro than the default one.
> In hindsight, using D_Ddoc is a mistake as the user does not want to
> generate docs for Phobos but she does want to import stuff from it.
So, essentially we decide to treat druntime and Phobos differently with regards
to documentation by using a different macro on the assumption that no one wants
to build their ddoc documentation normally?
I'm not sure how this really solves the problem. Anyone who is building their
own code with version(D_Ddoc) blocks will find the problem relatively quickly but
they at least will then know how to fix it (don't build your code with -D and
generate your documentation separately). For projects that _don't_ have that
problem but use druntime and Phobos, wouldn't they either just use prebuilt
libraries for them or use druntime and Phobos' makefiles when building them, at
which point whether they use -D on their project or not has nothing to do with
druntime or Phobos.
Or am I missing something here? Are people building druntime and Phobos without
their makefiles? Then again, I'm not entirely clear how Rainer ran into this
problem in the first place.
I would expect this to be a problem when you're building code with -D _and_ that
code uses version(D_Ddoc) _and_ you want to build the code, not the
documentation. Other than that, I don't see how it would be a problem. That
being the case, if people either use the released binaries for druntime or
phobos, or if they use the makefiles that come with them (as you'd expect), then
there is no problem. Unless they're building druntime and/or phobos _with_ the
documentation with the idea that they'd _also_ use the binaries, but that seems
unlikely to me.
- Jonathan M Davis
More information about the dmd-beta