On Thursday, 28 March 2013 at 05:04:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Ok, that sound reasonable.
Second question, why do you do stuff like :
enum Foo {
FooA,
FooB,
FooC,
}
when you would do
enum Foo {
A,
B,
C,
}
?
I don't, I do:
alias uint Foo;
enum : Foo
{
FooA,
FooB,
FooC
}
which is a direct translation of the C enums. It gives the enum
items no named scope, only creates an (alias) type for them. See
https://github.com/Calrama/llvm-d/blob/master/llvm/c/constants.d
and
https://github.com/Calrama/llvm-d/blob/master/llvm/c/types.d
D enums introduce a scope, when C's don't. So C need to prefix
enums entries manually, when in D it isn't required. The C to D
translation goes as follow : FooA => Foo.A instead of Foo.FooA .
That is not the D equivalence of the C code. That is how D
improves upon C enums. The equivalence and thus the translation
is to not use a named scope as seen above.
If the goal isn't to follow LLVM's source as closely as
possible, I think this is the way to go.
It does follow the LLVM C API source code as closely as possible.
It just uses a module structure different from LLVM's C API
header structure for the reasons stated above, which does not
change how to use the C API (As you should do "import llvm.c.all"
either way). This is also not a new approach, Derelict (one of
the major providers for D bindings to C libraries other than
deimos) has been doing it for a long time.
