Library standardization

[Bill Baxter]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> == Quote from Janice Caron (caron800 at googlemail.com)'s article
>> On 19/04/2008, Sean Kelly <sean at invisibleduck.org> wrote:
>>>> So you want the ability to import a module, but not have to rebuild
>>>  > dependent files if that module changes?
>>>  > Good luck with that one.
>>>
>>> Apparently you've never used C/C++.  I apologize or the misunderstanding.
>> Touché. But I was talking about D.
>> OK, so you're basically saying you want D to have header files, like
>> C. Fair enough. The prospect doesn't thrill me, but I would be
>> intrigued to know how other many people want this.
> 
> Personally, I'd just like the auto header generator to provide some
> means of not outputting bodies of any functions at all.  The easiest
> way to accomplish this would be to make the feature sensitive to
> the -inline switch.  Bonus points would be awarded for preserving
> the formatting of the original file, but I suspect that would be difficult
> to accomplish.

-inline has the wrong sense though.  Most people are probably happy with 
things the way they are, so you'd want a -noinline flag for those folks 
who want to prevent outputting function bodies.  Except if you're going 
to make a flag that's just for not outputting function bodies you might 
as well call it -Hnoimpl or something.

I can't actually use -inline on my project because it pushes my modules 
over OPTLINK'S fixup limit.

--bb