Re: No header files?

[Jérôme M. Berger]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:16:48 -0400, AJ <a...@nospam.net> wrote:

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op.u157hfkveav...@localhost.localdomain...

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:59:52 -0400, AJ <a...@nospam.net> wrote:

Since D has no header files, how does one create "a library" that another

developer can use without exposing the implementation?

try dmd -H.

.di files are D header files, basically used for the reason you specify.

OK, so header files can be generated. The thing is though, when I am
designing at the code level, I start with the declarations (such as class

to someone else) afterwards. That serves as the "blue print" for further
development and remains as first level of documentation as well. Working
with just "implementation files" seems to be putting the cart before the

good, exactly for the reasons of usefullness I gave).

data members and methods) and do the implementation (or one can hand it off horse. While eliminating something unnecessary is something to strive for, I don't think header files are unnecessary in the development process (i.e., I don't think that relegating them to just the situation given with my OP is

Separating interface from implementation is good -- but not if you have to repeat the interface (as you do with C++ or C). What happens (and being a long-time C++ developer, I've had my fair share of experience with it) is that the interface gets out of sync with the implementation, so weird shit happens.

I've never had any problem keeping my .h files in sync with the .c files. Just include the .h and the compiler will barf if they don't match...

                Jerome
--
mailto:jeber...@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature