"1100110" wrote in message news:ldkuku$1sgt$1...@digitalmars.com...
I don't think we'll ever please everyone here. All I'm really trying to
do by specifying the name is prevent some cutesy annoying name.
It's pretty hard to get a pull request in with a silly switch name, so I
wouldn't worry too much about that.
I'd be fine with the switch being name -nodruntime, and honestly I like
>> Has to fulfill Walter's original post. (listed below)
>> Has to split the separate parts into different flags as well as
>> -minimal(-nogc, -nomoduleinfo, etc. Naming is left to the implementer).
> Make a enhancement report on bugzilla with the details.
I will as soon as I iron a few wrinkles. I need to figure out if typeinfo
should be a part of this as well.
I strongly recommend putting only goals in the enhancement request, and
avoiding implementation details (and especially syntax) whenever possible.
Eg Struct equality requires typeinfo, but and implementation that changed it
to use templates instead would probably be fine. The typeinfo part is
irrelevant here, you just want to avoid having to link druntime in.
Specifying individual flags is also not recommended, because a better
interface might emerge and then the issue of whether the ER is completed
gets messy. Instead saying "I want a way to disable just the GC" avoids
Finally, putting many things in one request discourages partial fixes, makes
discussion harder to follow, and could get complicated with a bounty
involved. (what if two people implement different parts etc) It would be
better (IMO) to split each atomic feature into its own ER and cross-link
them, even if this means splitting the bounty across them.