Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:21:32 -0400, Walter Bright
<[email protected]> wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
The C/C++ way of headers + lib has problems which D inherited as part
of the same (broken) design.
Hardly, as:
1. you don't need to use header files in D at all
2. you can automatically generate .di files, guaranteeing they are not
out of sync
That second one is not true if you are doing incremental building (ever
use a build tool that occasionally screws up and doesn't rebuild
something?).
At least it is possible to automate. You cannot automate C/C++ header
files, so they are inherently unreliable.
In addition, the only *true* reason to use .di files is to
hide implementation
It's also to speed up compilation.
-- which the auto generator does *not* do. So you
are back to hand editing and back to sync problems.
If you need to hide implementation, I suggest instead redesigning your
interface to use "interface" types, or use the pimpl idiom.
IMO .di files are as horrible as header files in C and I avoid them like
the plague. I'd hate to have to use them, but so far, I haven't had any
public release of proprietary code, so no need for them yet.
I agree they aren't necessary most of the time, I don't agree they are
even as close to being as horrible as C headers, unless you are
hand-editting them. If you are doing the latter, I suggest something may
have gone wrong with the design of your interface.
