On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 00:42:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/17/2012 3:03 PM, deadalnix wrote:
I know that. I not arguing against that. I'm arguing against
the fact that this
is a blocker. This is blocker in very few use cases in fact. I
just look at the
whole picture here. People needing that are the exception, not
the rule.
I'm not sure what you mean. A blocker for what?
And what prevent us from using a bytecode that loose
information ?
I'd turn that around and ask why have a bytecode?
Because it is CTFEable efficiently, without requiring either to
recompile the source code or even distribute the source code.
As long as it is CTFEable, most people will be happy.
CTFE needs the type information and AST trees and symbol table.
Everything needed for decompilation.
You do not need more information that what is in a di file. Java
and C# put more info in that because of runtime reflection (and
still, they are tools to strip most of it, no type info, granted,
but everything else), something we don't need.
