CTFE and DI: The Crossroads of D

[Adam Wilson]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 21:12:53 -0700, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:

> "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wd2prcc4707hn8 at invictus.skynet.com...
>>
>> I actually agree with you, im just telling you what I hear from PHB's.
>>
>
> I was just kinda rambling anyway ;) Not directed at any particular  
> poster.
>
>
>> We need some way to export the symbols without the underlying code, it
>> makes for faster compile times and having the API handy can be useful to
>> development tools.
>> However, my experience with PHB's is that as long as you don't send out
>> the actual source files but some form of sanitized header, the PHB's  
>> don't
>> really care beyond that.
>> That'd why I think embedding a version of the source D files that has  
>> been
>> semantically analyzed could be helpful, you can pull in the source for
>> CTFE as needed, but the only thing you have to actually ship out is the
>> library file itself, it just happens to have source files inside. In my
>> experience in the .NET world, this is good enough for the PHB's. Out of
>> sight, out of mind as they say. So what if it's trickery, we developers
>> get a benefit to, we don't have to wrangle include files.
>>
>
> Well, if that works for the PHBs, then it works for me (Hmm...Never  
> thought
> I'd say something like that ;) )
>
> Thinking about it more, I suppose it's debatable whether a PHB-comlpiant
> obfuscator or a lib-with-embedded-source would be easier to implement and
> deal with.
>

I'm a fan of embedded source as it's relatively easy to get from the  
compiler when it's time to build the output file. No extra steps required.  
:-)

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/