On Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 20:14:32 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:57:46 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe
<[email protected]> wrote:
The real WTF is we use .di files for druntime in the
first place. It is performance sensitive and open source.
We should be using the actual sources for inlining, ctfe,
etc. anyway.
Let's not torpedo the .di patch's value for just phobos.
I agree (although not generating .di files does not fix all the
problems of inlining and ctfe -- there are many stubbed
functions even in the .d files).
In my opinion, .di generation should by default generate
fully-stripped code except for templates. If you want
functions to be CTFE-able, don't use auto-generated .di files
to import them.
-Steve
This makes sense.
So this means the datetime example would fail to compile when
using druntime's .di files. This should be emphasized in the
spec/docs to minimize the chance for gotchas for users.
We could add an exception to this rule by tagging functions with
e.g. "export". What do you think?
