Why?

[Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole]

On 05/04/2024 3:11 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> Let's put aside the implementation of the automatic way to generate 
> '.di', and rephrase: Are .di intended to be the correct way to expose 
> /public/ API of an opaque library binary?

I intend to see this happen yes.

If we don't do this, language features like inference simply make it 
impossible to link against code that has had it.

It will also mean shared libraries can hide their internal details, 
which is something I care about greatly.