On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:16:28 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 7/23/11 12:19 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 05:52:12 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
I don't think it's an either-or situation. For a variety of reasons,
some organizations want separate control of the "declaration" and
"definition" files. Inability to do so is a common criticism leveled
against Java and one of the reasons for the proliferation of XML
configuration files and dynamic loading in that language.
Now I'm curious, what are those reasons? Can we improve .di generation
to accommodate everyone, even if we'd need to add attributes or pragmas
to the language or frontend?
It just seems to me like this path kills two birds with one stone, and
is less work overall than doing both.
Improving .di generation is great. Large projects may have policies that
restrict changing interface files so as to not trigger recompilation
without necessity. Such policies are difficult to accommodate with .di
files that are generated automatically.
So don't change a generated .di file's mtime if the contents is identical
to the existing version on disk.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir mailto:vladi...@thecybershadow.net
