On 2012-01-26 22:31, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 26.01.2012, 18:47 Uhr, schrieb Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com>:
On 2012-01-26 15:46, Manu wrote:
On 26 January 2012 16:45, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com
<mailto:turkey...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 26 January 2012 16:33, Marco Leise <marco.le...@gmx.de
<mailto:marco.le...@gmx.de>> wrote:
Am 26.01.2012, 05:08 Uhr, schrieb Brad Roberts
<bra...@puremagic.com <mailto: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?
BTW, we don't have any OS specific bindings for OSes that also have
Posix bindings. I thinking mostly on Mac OS X, don't know if the other
OSes have anything useful.
That's because you can get away with only using Posix on Mac OS X. If
the situation was like on Windows, druntime would have to bind to the
Mac OS X API as well. So I don't think this is a good counter argument.
My thoughts are just: 2 places for the same thing are bad, druntime
already depends on it => put it there.
It's not an argument, it's a comment.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
