On Sunday, 23 November 2014 at 19:36:16 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2014-11-23 01:26, Mike Parker wrote:
Some people may prefer the bindings to include more D
features, but IMO
if you're going to put something out there for everyone and
anyone to
use, particularly if you want to be consistent with other
Derelict
bindings, it's better to avoid them.
For more D features I would add a thin layer on top of the raw
bindings. Like creating wrappers for functions accepting C
strings and have them accept D strings instead.
In this particular case I would probably have created the enum
as one would do in D and the alias the enum members to make
them accessible at module scope.
While I like language-friendly wrappers, they do tend to make
some choices. They require additional documentation since new
names and usage are introduced.
Sticking to the C API is choice-agnostic, existing documentation
can be reused.
