On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 02:17:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 August 2014 at 01:57:38 UTC, Mike wrote:
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?

Yeah, "any external / OS bindings" is probably more appropriate wording.

It's a step in the right direction, but ultimately just a formality. Maybe that's the best I can hope for.

Reply via email to