core.stdcpp

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:57:38 UTC, Mike wrote:
>> What do you think about following compromise:
>>
>> 1) C bindings are defined in spec to be optional
>> 2) They are still kept in druntime repo but declared an 
>> implementation detail
>> 3) C bindings are defined to be mandatory in Phobos - if 
>> Phobos is used with druntime that does not provide C bindings, 
>> it must expose ones of its own.
>>
>> It effectively keeps existing layout but moves from a 
>> specification to implementation detail making binding-free 
>> druntime 100% legal D implementation.
>
> By "C bindings" do you really mean "C/C++ bindings" given the 
> context of this thread?

Yeah, "any external / OS bindings" is probably more appropriate 
wording.