"Jason House" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > AJ Wrote: > >> >> "Steven Schveighoffer" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:59:52 -0400, AJ <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Since D has no header files, how does one create "a library" that >> >> another >> >> developer can use without exposing the implementation? >> > >> > try dmd -H. >> > >> > .di files are D header files, basically used for the reason you >> > specify. >> >> OK, so header files can be generated. The thing is though, when I am >> designing at the code level, I start with the declarations (such as class >> data members and methods) and do the implementation (or one can hand it >> off >> to someone else) afterwards. That serves as the "blue print" for further >> development and remains as first level of documentation as well. Working >> with just "implementation files" seems to be putting the cart before the >> horse. While eliminating something unnecessary is something to strive >> for, I >> don't think header files are unnecessary in the development process >> (i.e., I >> don't think that relegating them to just the situation given with my OP >> is >> good, exactly for the reasons of usefullness I gave). >> >> > > I think you keep a very structured development style that few share. > Nothing stops you from writing a header-file-like .d file and then hand it > off for someone to fill in the methods, etc...
Would I have to use a dmd-generated one to distribute to users of my library though? Are generated .di files something different or more than what I'd write in a C/C++ .h?
