On Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 23:07:04 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 23:32:38 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 12/16/12, Paulo Pinto <pj...@progtools.org> wrote:
> If modules are used correctly, a .di should be created with
> the public
> interface and everything else is already in binary format,
> thus the
> compiler is not really parsing everything all the time.
A lot of D code tends to be templated code, .di files don't
help you
in that case.
And .di files don't work with CTFE or inlining. In general, .di
files are a
horrible idea.
I tend to be of the opinion that they shouldn't even exist, but
some corporate
types require that sort of thing when distributing libraries to
3rd parties,
so we need some sort of header solution. A better one probably
would have been
a binary format where the code is partially compiled with
documentation
providing a human-readable API, but that's something that we'll
have to look
into in the future. For now, we're stuck with .di files.
- Jonathan M Davis
If you want the language to have a place in the enterprise, you
have to support the enterprise use cases, as simple as that.
--
Paulo
