On Friday, 1 June 2018 at 17:59:21 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
The .di file is just an interface, it doesn't know what's
actually compiled in the binary.
To put it another way, the compiler only generates a ModuleInfo
(or dependency modules) for .d files. .di files are simply a
public API for the .d files.
Yes, this is my point. (Communication is much harder than I
thought.)
When you encounter a .di file, you can't rely on an automated
tool to tell you what modules need to be initialized or figure
out an order for them. You have to do it manually, and if you
mess it up, you get undefined behavior.
This is why I called it "here be dragons" -- it's fraught.
Unless your goal was to omit the depth-first search in the common
case while preserving the rest of the current logic. I'm curious
how much time that would save.
