On Monday, 17 December 2012 at 01:11:22 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 16:57:31 Walter Bright wrote:
I've done such (precompiled headers for C++), I've done .di
files, and I've
done Java bytecode. .di files are superior in nearly every way.
Given that .di don't work with inlining or CTFE, I'd consider
them to be a
very poor solution. You're seriously impairing yourself if you
use them. It's
pretty much BS that corporations insist on header files to hide
implementation,
since it really doesn't work, but if we're going to be forced
to a have a
solution which tries to hide implementation to make folks like
that happy, we
could at least have one that doesn't cripple the language like
.di files do. It
may not truly hide the implementation any better than .di files
do, but at
least it would allow us to still use the language properly.
I'm not expecting this problem to be fixed any time soon (we
have far higher
priorites), but I really do think that in the long run .di
files should be
deprecated in favor of a binary solution which doesn't stop
things like
inlining or CTFE from working.
- Jonathan M Davis
Similar solutions work for Ada, Modula-3, F#, Haskell, OCaml, just
to cite a few languages with generic types and modules.
So the issue is how .di files are implemented, not the general
concept.
--
Paulo
