On Sunday, 16 February 2014 at 05:27:07 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:53:19 -0500, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, 16 February 2014 at 02:57:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think that the best and quickest approach at this time is to disallow classes. They are not trivial. If we can figure out a clean way to add them back, then they can be allowed later.



Note that the same applies to classes with ARC (or other reference counting mechanism).

Right, but ARC classes would be marked differently or derive from a different base. Like extern(C++) classes (which actually should work under minimal D).

What we are debating is allowing just plain-old D classes could compile and be used under minimal D. I don't think that's a good idea.

-Steve

Oh, sorry, I thought the were discussing extern(C++) classes support -- those are too GC'd by default so compiled with and without GC require different designs and implementations.

Plain objects require Object.d, core.Mutex, ModuleInfo, TypeInfo and a lot of other things to support, and as such most likely impossible to implement preserving compatibility with "full D".

Reply via email to