On Sunday, 16 February 2014 at 05:27:07 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:53:19 -0500, Denis Koroskin
<2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 16 February 2014 at 02:57:25 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
I think that the best and quickest approach at this time is
to disallow classes. They are not trivial. If we can figure
out a clean way to add them back, then they can be allowed
later.
Note that the same applies to classes with ARC (or other
reference counting mechanism).
Right, but ARC classes would be marked differently or derive
from a different base. Like extern(C++) classes (which actually
should work under minimal D).
What we are debating is allowing just plain-old D classes could
compile and be used under minimal D. I don't think that's a
good idea.
-Steve
Oh, sorry, I thought the were discussing extern(C++) classes
support -- those are too GC'd by default so compiled with and
without GC require different designs and implementations.
Plain objects require Object.d, core.Mutex, ModuleInfo, TypeInfo
and a lot of other things to support, and as such most likely
impossible to implement preserving compatibility with "full D".
