On May 11, 2013 6:35 PM, "David Nadlinger" <s...@klickverbot.at> wrote: > > On Saturday, 11 May 2013 at 17:23:53 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote: >> >> That... doesn't sound very nice to me. How much of phobos are we >> realistically going to need? > > > All of it? Well, not quite, but large parts at least. > > If we are going to stick to the C subset of the language, there is little point in translating it to D in the first place. > > Of course, there will be some restrictions arising from the fact that the code base needs to work with D versions from a year back or so. But to me duplicating the whole standard library inside the compiler source seems like maintenance hell. > > David
I don't think it would be anything in the slightest at all. For instance, Bigint implementation is big, BIG. :) What would be ported to the compiler may be influenced by BigInt, but would be a limited subset of its functionality tweaked for the purpose of use in the front end. I am more concerned from GDC's perspective of things. Especially when it comes to building from hosts that may have phobos disabled (this is a configure switch). Regards -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';