On 3/28/2017 11:12 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
As far as I understand, D can link with C++ templates if they're instantiated on
the C++ side. It would link with the instantiated template not the actual
template.
Recall that dmd itself connected to C++ templates when the front end was not
full i
On 2017-03-28 00:30, kinke wrote:
Yep, so there are no libs my D code can link to, so how am I supposed to
use C++ templates from D (as you're using that as argument for the
`const T *const` mangling)?
As far as I understand, D can link with C++ templates if they're
instantiated on the C++ si
On Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 14:11:16 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
I understand you point and showed you why it isn't a mangling
problem at all, and gave you direction you may want to dig in
to make a proposal that may
actually get traction.
If you really did get my point, it should be clear that I d
On Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 13:18:57 UTC, kinke wrote:
You don't seem to get my point, I don't know why it's
apparently that hard.
It's hard because you assume I did not understood you point and
you keep repeating the same thing. I understand you point and
showed you why it isn't a mangling
On Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 12:55:02 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 08:30:43 UTC, kinke wrote:
What I don't get is why it's considered important to have a
matching C++ mangling for templates across D and C++ - what
for? I only care about mangling wrt.
If you still think t
On Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 08:30:43 UTC, kinke wrote:
What I don't get is why it's considered important to have a
matching C++ mangling for templates across D and C++ - what
for? I only care about mangling wrt.
If you still think this is a mangling problem, please reread my
first response i
On Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 02:14:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Realistically, unless D fully supports C++ (which pretty much
means that it has to become C++ on some level), you're almost
always going to be stuck with some sort of glue layer between D
code and C++ code. There's no reasonable
On Monday, March 27, 2017 20:41:51 kinke via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 27 March 2017 at 20:09:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > Whichever way it is mangled will gore someone's ox. D went with
> > the simplest mangling solution, which is to mangle all C++
> > const pointers as "head const".
>
On 3/27/2017 3:30 PM, kinke wrote:
On Monday, 27 March 2017 at 22:24:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/27/2017 3:12 PM, kinke wrote:
It's made to work with:
const T
which is the norm with C++ templates.
Okay, so how exactly do I bind D code to a C++ header-only-template library? I
though
On Monday, 27 March 2017 at 22:24:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/27/2017 3:12 PM, kinke wrote:
It's made to work with:
const T
which is the norm with C++ templates.
Okay, so how exactly do I bind D code to a C++
header-only-template library? I
thought that in that case you need a full
On 3/27/2017 3:12 PM, kinke wrote:
It's made to work with:
const T
which is the norm with C++ templates.
Okay, so how exactly do I bind D code to a C++ header-only-template library? I
thought that in that case you need a full D translation anyway...
C++ templates are always header-only.
On Monday, 27 March 2017 at 22:04:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/27/2017 1:41 PM, kinke wrote:
Unfortunately, it's almost always the other way around - D
code trying to
interop with one of the gazillions existing C++ libs, and
nobody wants to
maintain his own fork with D-compatible glue inte
On 3/27/2017 1:41 PM, kinke wrote:
Unfortunately, it's almost always the other way around - D code trying to
interop with one of the gazillions existing C++ libs, and nobody wants to
maintain his own fork with D-compatible glue interfaces. How often did you use
`const T *const` vs. `const T *` in
On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 22:56:59 UTC, Jerry wrote:
On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 22:29:56 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
It is clear that you won't be able to express 100% of C++ in
D, that would require to important all the weird parts of C++
into D, but if we are doing so, why use D in the first pla
On Monday, 27 March 2017 at 20:09:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Whichever way it is mangled will gore someone's ox. D went with
the simplest mangling solution, which is to mangle all C++
const pointers as "head const".
[...]
I suggest a simpler way - declare the C++ side of the D
interface in a
On 3/26/2017 3:29 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Note that using const Class* in C++ is essentially useless. The class remains
mutable and the reference is local the the callee anyway, so it doesn't change
anything for the caller. Such a pattern is most likely indicative of a bug on
the C++ side, or at lea
On 3/26/2017 3:43 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Should I open a bug for this?
It's not a bug, it was intended that way.
The trouble is that D cannot express a to . Whichever
way it is mangled will gore someone's ox. D went with the simplest mangling
solution, which is to mangle all C++ const po
On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 17:41:57 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
There are thousands of C++ libraries out there that can't be
bound to D because they use const Class* instead of const
Class* const. So in my eyes there is definitly something wrong
with the C++ mangling of D.
I agree that C++-ma
On Sunday, March 26, 2017 18:31:52 Jerry via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 15:29:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Personally, I don't think that the fact that you can't use
> > const for head-const in D is really a loss, since it's almost
> > never what you want. Tail-const
On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 22:29:56 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
It is clear that you won't be able to express 100% of C++ in D,
that would require to important all the weird parts of C++ into
D, but if we are doing so, why use D in the first place ?
Note that using const Class* in C++ is essentiall
On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 17:41:57 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 14:30:00 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
It's consistent. D's const is transitive, and D doesn't allow
you to specify const on the indirection of a reference type.
So there is no problem on the C++ mangling side
On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 15:29:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Personally, I don't think that the fact that you can't use
const for head-const in D is really a loss, since it's almost
never what you want. Tail-const is _way_ more useful. But it is
true that by making D's const fully transiti
On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 14:30:00 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
It's consistent. D's const is transitive, and D doesn't allow
you to specify const on the indirection of a reference type. So
there is no problem on the C++ mangling side of things, but,
arguably, there is one in D's sementic, that is
On Sunday, March 26, 2017 14:51:28 Namespace via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 14:30:00 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> > On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 10:43:11 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> >> As you see from the above example D mangles the getClassConst
> >> as a "Class const * const" i
On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 14:30:00 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 10:43:11 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
As you see from the above example D mangles the getClassConst
as a "Class const * const" instead of a "Class const *"
("YAQEBV" vs "YAPEBV"). Is this expected behavior?
I
On Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 10:43:11 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
As you see from the above example D mangles the getClassConst
as a "Class const * const" instead of a "Class const *"
("YAQEBV" vs "YAPEBV"). Is this expected behavior?
It's consistent. D's const is transitive, and D doesn't allow
Consider the following C++ and D source:
class Class
{
virtual ~Class(){}
};
// mangles as ?getClass@@YAPEAVClass@@XZ
Class * getClass() { return nullptr; }
// mangles as ?getClassConst@@YAPEBVClass@@XZ
const Class * getClassConst() { return nullptr; }
// mangles as ?getClassConstConst
27 matches
Mail list logo
