d bare bones

[Iain Buclaw]

On 6 September 2013 19:40, eles <eles at eles.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 17:09:03 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>
>> eles, el  6 de September a las 16:20 me escribiste:
>>>
>>> On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 14:09:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>> >On 6 September 2013 14:13, Dicebot <public at dicebot.lv> wrote:
>>> >>On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 12:25:56 UTC, eles wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 10:43:38 UTC, Iain Buclaw
>>> >>>wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>On 6 September 2013 10:35, eles <eles at eles.com> wrote:
>>
>> LDC used to have a --no-runtime switch or something like that, that
>> aborted compilation if a call to the runtime was emitted. I
>
>
> That's good, but is rather a workaround for a limitation of the language. Is
> D the first language with a compiler unable to compile its own standard
> library?

And you rephrase that question? I think you asked it wrong. :)


> There is no guarantee in the language that one day even the most
> innocent operation in the language won't require the standard library and
> what compiles with "--no-runtime" today might as well not compile tomorrow.
>

I don't think that's true.  Any compiler operations being moved into
the library will be separate from the language keyword. eg: creal ->
Complex!real.


> In C or C++, while the standard library is part of the language standard, is
> not part of the language per sé. It is not part of the compiler, after all.
> It is provided with.
>

C++ required a minimal runtime as it does emit library calls through
code generation (see libcxxrt link earlier in this thread) - there are
however compiler switches which mean that the c++ compiler will error
if you try to use any of these features.

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';