Le 09/05/2012 22:58, Adam Wilson a écrit :
On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:51:22 -0700, Jonathan M Davis
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, May 09, 2012 22:46:58 foobar wrote:
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?
export already has another meaning. It also goes against the whole
idea that
any function is supposed to be CTFEable without special annotations.
- Jonathan M Davis
I think an attribute like @implementation would be useful here. It could
easily be used by the DI generator to keep the implementation in the DI
file. You would only need to apply it to functions that you want to be
CTFEable externally, internal CTFE would still work the same.
It is reversed logic. The more code you have available, the better for
the compiler and the user.
Code should be stripped only if a reason tells us to do so (compile
time, source code shouldn't be released, etc . . .).
