CTFE and DI: The Crossroads of D

["Michaël]

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 02:59:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 5/9/12 3:14 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:57:46 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe
>> <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The real WTF is we use .di files for druntime in the
>>> first place. It is performance sensitive and open source.
>>>
>>> We should be using the actual sources for inlining, ctfe,
>>> etc. anyway.
>>>
>>> Let's not torpedo the .di patch's value for just phobos.
>>
>> I agree (although not generating .di files does not fix all 
>> the problems
>> of inlining and ctfe -- there are many stubbed functions even 
>> in the .d
>> files).
>>
>> In my opinion, .di generation should by default generate 
>> fully-stripped
>> code except for templates. If you want functions to be 
>> CTFE-able, don't
>> use auto-generated .di files to import them.
>>
>> -Steve
>
> Actually the point here is to still be able to benefit of di 
> automated generation while opportunistically marking certain 
> functions as "put the body in the .di file".
>
> @inline anyone?
>
>
> Andrei

I find the @inline confusing, people could mistook it with a 
force inline attribute.

Something like @compiletime would be more clear for the tool and 
the user.