On Friday, 16 May 2014 at 20:28:31 UTC, Tom Browder via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
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
Yeah , I do and Deimos does too:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos
