On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:05:19 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 00:32:20 UTC, Mike wrote:
I believe druntime's scope should be reduced to simply implementing the language, not creating an OS or library API. That's what phobos and DUB are for.

I'm asking this community to consider setting a new precedent for druntime: reduce the scope to just the language implementation, encapsulate and isolate the platform specific logic (e.g. the ports - see 11666), and deport the artificial dependencies to phobos or other libraries.

What do you think about following compromise:

1) C bindings are defined in spec to be optional
2) They are still kept in druntime repo but declared an implementation detail 3) C bindings are defined to be mandatory in Phobos - if Phobos is used with druntime that does not provide C bindings, it must expose ones of its own.

It effectively keeps existing layout but moves from a specification to implementation detail making binding-free druntime 100% legal D implementation.

By "C bindings" do you really mean "C/C++ bindings" given the context of this thread?

Reply via email to