On 8/26/14, 8:30 AM, Mike wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 14:48:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/26/14, 3:06 AM, Mike wrote:
D has a lot of potential beyond it's current use.  Please take this
opportunity to reflect on what's been done, take a look ahead, and see
if we can set a better precedent for the future.

C++ interoperability is very important for D's future. -- Andrei

I know it is and I fully support it.  I'm not arguing against it.
  Please add all C++ interoperability support you want to the compiler
and to druntime.  I look forward to making use of it.


But libstdc++ is not part of C++-the-language, and libc is not part of
C-the-language.  C and C++ can be used without them; I do every day.

If core.stdcpp is intended to be the language bindings to libstdc++, I
don't think it should belong it D's language implementation, druntime,
any more the language bindings to Cairo or GTK should.

The same goes for core.stdc and core.sys.linux and friends, as these are
not part of D's language implementation.

I don't understand the objection. Are you arguing that we shouldn't make core.stdc and core.stdcpp available, and instead let anyone who wants to use libc and libc++ write their own declarations?


Reply via email to