On Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 12:57:08 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

As a response to my last message in that thread, the changes for classinfo generation is now ready to go in master.

Ok, I'll give it a test in the next week or so.

However I already have ideas for future implementation that is not so naive when it comes to looking up fields to assign data. How does a kind of tagging system sound?


class TypeInfo_Class
    string classname;

    byte[] initializer;

I'm assuming this idea addresses the issue with porting druntime and leaving some features unimplemented. If I understand your intention, this looks akin to Rust's Lang Items feature (https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/lang-items.html). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not sure what you're envisioning here, so I'd like to hear more. Would the user get compile-time errors if they used a D feature that required a druntime implementation, but the implementation did not exist?


Reply via email to