On Monday, 27 August 2012 at 07:54:12 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 27 August 2012 07:52, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
On 8/26/2012 9:25 PM, Chris Cain wrote:
On Monday, 27 August 2012 at 04:01:10 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
What happens with the name mangling? What about overloading?
template
type
deduction? type specialization? type equivalence? type
covariance?
Name mangling: Without knowing enough about compiler making,
I'm not sure
why it
matters. I couldn't answer, sorry.
The mangled names have a 1:1 correspondence with types. A
mangled name
can, for example, be reversed into a type.
If default args form part of the type, then they'll have to be
mangled in,
too. This causes a rather long list of substantial problems.
This sounds like an implementation detail/dmd quirk is defining
the
language spec...
For it sounds like constraining the language while keeping the
C/C++ linker semantics, instead of using a D aware linker.
Not trolling, just trying to understand the design constraints.
--
Paulo
