On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 19:38:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/30/2015 10:51 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 17:38:06 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
It'd be worthwhile to learn how D's name lookup system works
before declaring
it lame and insufficient:
Nobody has said anything about lame. The issue is that you
don't need to know of
"version1" on the C++ side.
Did you look at the example I posted?
Yes, the problem I see is:
1. You need to know about "version1" which is an internal
namespace on the C++ side, so you cannot just create binding to
the documented API, but need to go through the source code just
to discover that "version1" exists.
2. If the library internals changes on the C++ side it causes
problems for D application code, but not for C++ application code.
3. In order to keep the D and the C++ side call the same set of
APIs (if desired) you also need to know on the D side whether the
current C++ configuration has enabled "version1" or "version2" (+
a bunch of other potential variations).
In essence the C++ model isn't friendly to foreign languages.
They keep bolting on "neat hacks" to extend the language in
nonbreaking "transparent" ways (on the C++ side).
