On 13 February 2014 00:25, John Colvin <john.loughran.col...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 14:15:55 UTC, Manu wrote: > >> On 12 February 2014 16:11, eles <e...@eles.com> wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 03:28:57 UTC, Manu wrote: >>> >>> On 12 February 2014 12:11, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 12 February 2014 05:43, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> I've changed my mind. Depending on a functional link-stripper sucks. >>>> I think it's definitely useful, although I think it should be >>>> implemented >>>> as a suite of flags, not just a single one. Sure, a convenience flag can >>>> be >>>> offered, but as an implementation detail, it should be a suite of flags. >>>> >>>> >>> I like this and I also think providing compiler switches (ie. without >>> naming the subset) as being acceptable. >>> >>> However, what if I would need those switches for just one particular >>> module and the functions therein? How to compile only those modules with >>> the switches? >>> >>> Only through manual compile/linking? >>> >>> >> Yes, exactly as with C++ today. It shouldn't be an unfamiliar problem to >> most. >> > > How does that work with templates across modules? > I'm not sure how that would affect anything? Only a couple of runtime things would be unavailable, and ideally individually unavailable on different flags.
