On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:53:02 -0800, Jakob Ovrum <jakobov...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 19 December 2011 at 21:04:28 UTC, so wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:24:18 +0200, Adam Wilson <flybo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
So the consensus is to keep all private members/imports/etc?
Ideally to get most out of the auto generation of di files (by
definition of module system) we need to strip ALL private stuff.
Only this way we can say the automation is on par with handcrafting.
But if it does not look doable somehow, we can always handcraft them
(which i'll generally prefer),
Private members can still be used from public templates and whatnot. You
can't take them out unless you can statically proved all references
within the same .di to that private member was removed in the stripping
process.
It sounds at this point we will just be leaving everything private in the
DI files, sans implementations.
foo.d
------
private i = 42;
// Is a public template, has to be left in
void bar()()
{
/* Uses 'i' */
}
void baz()
{
/* Also uses 'i' */
}
------
foo.di
------
void bar()()
{
/* Still uses 'i', where did it go!? */
}
void baz(); // Fine, no longer need 'i'
------
Also, on a side note, function parameters can use types from private
imports too. Be it function, data or import, it has to be left in even
if private.
This was discovered by drey_ on IRC and will be fixed by leaving all
privates intact. I'll upload a patch to my git account this evening.
--
Adam Wilson
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
