On Tuesday, 5 March 2013 at 18:16:41 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Leverage UDAs ?
Yes that's one possible method, tagging the interface with recognized attributes that guide the generation of the .di files. If the generation is smart enough that we can do without, even better.
The other need expressed in here is to have a means to benefit from a separation of interface from implementation inside the source base. I'll admit that bundling the two together is somewhat of a pain as it can hide away the interface. However I wonder if this is not best served through automatic documentation, ie, if the .di generation can figure out the interface, then why can't DDoc do it too? Then again, this may be more of a coding convenience issue more than a documentation issue, so I'm not strongly opposed to separating interface from implementation, rather my main concern was seeing manual maintenance of .di files being taken seriously. From my POV it's akin to having to hex edit your .o files to keep them in sync with source code changes.
If there's to be a method of interface-implementation separation, I think whatever is devised should minimize code duplication as much as possible, and the .di files should always be generated and maintained automatically.
--rt
