On Friday, 1 July 2016 at 23:23:19 UTC, Hiemlick Hiemlicker wrote:
ok. For some reason I thought CTFE's applied to normal
functions but I realize that doesn't make a lot of sense.
It is applied to normal functions, just when they are used in the
right context.
int a = factorial(3); // normal runtime
static a = factorial(3); // CTFE
Same function, but different contexts. In a static or enum
variable, it is CTFE'd. In a normal runtime variable, it is
runtime interpreted.
Yes, of course. Do D names change depending on -debug vs
-release?
No, he meant -g, not -debug. That puts the function names in the
executable, whereas they might not be there without it (though
they might be too... I don't think this makes much of a
difference)
See my post here:
http://stackoverflow.com/a/38149801/1457000
tbh, I don't think encrypting strings is really worth it either,
they aren't hard to extract anyway.
I'm not too concerned about the attacker seeing them because
they will have to watch every decryption to get the string(or
possibly write a utility to automate the decryption).
And that's not really hard.... where's the string going anyway?
You might want it in a separate file that you can optionally
encrypt or ask for it from the user.
