On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 02:37:22 UTC, Mike wrote:
I abandoned D sometime ago largely because of https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14758 (but there were other reasons), so your blog post is interesting to me. It is unfortunate that we have to resort to such hackery, but its nice to have such tools at our disposal regardless.

Yeah, the TypeInfo spam is the biggest pain point.

I proposed another idea for giving users more control over D Runtime by moving runtime hook definitions to .di header files. If you're interested, you can read about it here: http://forum.dlang.org/post/psssnzurlzeqeneag...@forum.dlang.org. I'd much rather have something like that over a -betterC; you can read more about some disadvantages to expanding on -betterC (e.g. removing RTTI) here: http://forum.dlang.org/post/nevipjrkdqxivoerf...@forum.dlang.org.

I think D can still be very usable without TypeInfo (especially if the unnecessary language dependence on it improves).

But I'm also wary of "solving" the problem with a hundred compiler flags and causing fragmentation.

Anyway, thanks for the post; it's given me a few ideas.

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't totally sure anyone would be interested in that hack.

Reply via email to