"Adam Wilson" <flybo...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:op.wd2prcc4707...@invictus.skynet.com... > > I actually agree with you, im just telling you what I hear from PHB's. >
I was just kinda rambling anyway ;) Not directed at any particular poster. > We need some way to export the symbols without the underlying code, it > makes for faster compile times and having the API handy can be useful to > development tools. > However, my experience with PHB's is that as long as you don't send out > the actual source files but some form of sanitized header, the PHB's don't > really care beyond that. > That'd why I think embedding a version of the source D files that has been > semantically analyzed could be helpful, you can pull in the source for > CTFE as needed, but the only thing you have to actually ship out is the > library file itself, it just happens to have source files inside. In my > experience in the .NET world, this is good enough for the PHB's. Out of > sight, out of mind as they say. So what if it's trickery, we developers > get a benefit to, we don't have to wrangle include files. > Well, if that works for the PHBs, then it works for me (Hmm...Never thought I'd say something like that ;) ) Thinking about it more, I suppose it's debatable whether a PHB-comlpiant obfuscator or a lib-with-embedded-source would be easier to implement and deal with.