On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 14:36:21 UTC, Manu wrote:
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.
What I mean is: template in module A that needs one of these
flags is instantiated from module B that needs to *not* have that
flag.
