On 26 January 2012 16:45, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 January 2012 16:33, Marco Leise <marco.le...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> Am 26.01.2012, 05:08 Uhr, schrieb Brad Roberts <bra...@puremagic.com>: >> >> On 1/24/2012 8:48 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >>> >>>> The level of support for the Windows API in druntime and Phobos is >>>> pretty low. >>>> As I understand it, Windows users are pretty much forced to use >>>> http://www.dsource.org/**projects/bindings/browser/**trunk/win32<http://www.dsource.org/projects/bindings/browser/trunk/win32>if >>>> they need >>>> comprehensive Win32 API bindings. druntime seems to be trying to define >>>> all of >>>> the OS-specific stuff like that, but on top of it missing much of it, >>>> in the >>>> case of the Win32 API, that's a _lot_ of functions, and I don't know if >>>> we >>>> want to put that much in druntime. So, the question is, how do we want >>>> to >>>> support the Win32 API in druntime and Phobos? >>>> >>>> Do we want to put all of the Win32 API bindings in druntime? If not, >>>> then do >>>> we want to put them in Phobos? Or do we just want to send Windows >>>> developers >>>> to a 3rd party library like the Win32 bindings project on dsource? >>>> Given that >>>> they're OS bindings, I would _think_ that we'd want them in druntime, >>>> but I >>>> don't know. >>>> >>>> Regardless, this is one of those issues which frequently plagues D >>>> Windows >>>> developers, and we really should at least get a plan together as to how >>>> we >>>> want to handle it. >>>> >>>> - Jonathan M Davis >>>> >>>> >>>> P.S. A related pull request: >>>> https://github.com/D-**Programming-<https://github.com/D-Programming-> >>>> Language/druntime/pull/139 >>>> >>> >>> We've got the posix api set in the runtime, not just the subset that the >>> runtime or phobos needs. IMHO, windows should >>> follow that pattern. It might be large from a number of lines of >>> declarations standpoint, but who cares. >>> >> >> I tend to agree. >> > > I wouldn't object to having guaranteed access to winapi in druntime... but > it is pretty big. In the interest of following the pattern with posix, it > makes sense to me. > But I'm also not allergic to it being a completely separate library, as > long as it's distributed with the windows toolchain. I probably wouldn't > want to see it in std, that makes no sense to me. druntime makes some sense > (since parts of druntime depend on windows calls) if people think that's > where it should be. > > What is the reasoning for putting the posix api in druntime? That seems > like a weird choice to me... it's nothing to do with druntime, except for a > couple of dependencies perhaps. >
Also, WinRT is upon us... I intend to start writing WinRT programs asap. Ahould that go in druntime too? Are we opening a floodgate?