On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Friday, 16 May 2014 at 19:17:05 UTC, Dicebot wrote: >> Using .di is more idiomatic as those are supposed to denote >> declaration-only interface files (with no implementation). In practice it >> makes almost no difference though so many people use plain .d by habit. ... > That's right. I always use .d files when porting C headers because i just > see them as regular D code. I like to classify .di files as D 'headers' > generated from pure D libraries (using the -H compiler switch). That's just > my opinion though and to be honest i don't think it matters. :)
Okay, Dicebot and Gary, that makes good sense I think, thanks. So I should use the ".d" for the binding source files since there will almost certainly be implementation code in them. Best, -Tom
