On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:25:13 -0000, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 January 2014 03:17, Regan Heath <re...@netmail.co.nz> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:15:41 -0000, Regan Heath <re...@netmail.co.nz>
wrote:
In other words, why can't we alias or wrap the generic routines in
std.string
What I meant here is why can't we alias or wrap the generic routines
(from
std.range, std.algo.. into aliases/functions) in std.string.
We can and should. Very liberally.
I'm still very concerned about the magnitude of bloat that gets pulled in
by any of these modules though. They're all intimately connected, none of
them seem to be able to exist without all of the others.
And there are some really huge template functions out there. Massive
functions, which take multiple template arguments (N^2 permutations),
where
the template types might only affects one or 2 lines... they need to be
broken down into very small template functions, and a non-templated inner
function.
We need, if one does not exist already, a dependency mapper tool. One
which would give some sort of graphical/hierarchical output of modules and
their dependencies, ideally drilling right down to the functions, methods,
variables etc being used.
Sounds fun, and there is a DMD frontend to build on right? Anyone got the
spare time?
Regan
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
