On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:09:51PM -0400, Michel Fortin wrote: > On 2013-09-09 00:03:11 +0000, Andrei Alexandrescu > <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> said: > > >D's module system has always favored a file-granular approach, > >e.g. private stuff is module-private. This notion of spilling > >private access outside the file into methods defined in various > >other files works against that nice tenet. > > Is the D module system file-granular or module-granular? I always > thought the later. Putting the implementation of functions in the .d > file while the declarations are in the corresponding .di does not > change things much: it's still one module, but it's one module split > over two files. > > It also helps solve another problem: the problem where you're > shipping a library and want to force some things to not be inlined. > This is needed if the library is to be swapped for another version > without having to recompile all client code. You can do this > currently by hand-crafting .di files, but it's a pain to keep it > manually in sync with the .d file. [...]
It would be nice if UDAs can somehow be used to mark functions as don't-inline, so that dmd -H produces the correct .di file without requiring manual maintenance. T -- Mediocrity has been pushed to extremes.
