[D-runtime] Why does druntime us .di files instead of .d?

[Andrew Wiley]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Andrew Wiley <wiley.andrew.j at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Walter Bright <walter at digitalmars.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/14/2011 2:40 PM, Andrew Wiley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It seems to me that a way to fix all this and guarantee CTFE-ability
>>> (which seems to be the end goal) would be to add some sort of modifier or
>>> annotation to designate that a function is CTFE-able.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Please, please, no! I hate "constexpr" in C++0x. One of the whole point of
>> CTFE is it "just works" on regular D functions.
>
>
> I think that's excellent as well, and to be honest I don't think an
> annotation is a good solution, but we're going to have to come up with
> something here because it isn't "just working."
>
> CTFE, traits, and mixins together make D a powerhouse for compile-time code
> generation, and that's pretty much what's kept me around here :D
>


Could we just ship both d and di files, and make the frontend able to switch
to the .d file when it needs the function source?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/d-runtime/attachments/20110714/a3ccd24d/attachment.html>