core.stdcpp

[Mike via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 02:17:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> 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.

It's a step in the right direction, but ultimately just a 
formality.  Maybe that's the best I can hope for.