D as A Better C?

[Manu]

On 13 February 2014 00:25, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 14:15:55 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> On 12 February 2014 16:11, eles <eles at eles.com> wrote:
>>
>>  On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 03:28:57 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 12 February 2014 12:11, Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On 12 February 2014 05:43, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>  I've changed my mind. Depending on a functional link-stripper sucks.
>>>> I think it's definitely useful, although I think it should be
>>>> implemented
>>>> as a suite of flags, not just a single one. Sure, a convenience flag can
>>>> be
>>>> offered, but as an implementation detail, it should be a suite of flags.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I like this and I also think providing compiler switches (ie. without
>>> naming the subset) as being acceptable.
>>>
>>> However, what if I would need those switches for just one particular
>>> module and the functions therein? How to compile only those modules with
>>> the switches?
>>>
>>> Only through manual compile/linking?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, exactly as with C++ today. It shouldn't be an unfamiliar problem to
>> most.
>>
>
> How does that work with templates across modules?
>

I'm not sure how that would affect anything? Only a couple of runtime
things would be unavailable, and ideally individually unavailable on
different flags.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140213/41425374/attachment.html>