On Wed, 09 May 2012 20:17:17 -0700, Michaël Larouche
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 02:59:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/9/12 3:14 PM, 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
Actually the point here is to still be able to benefit of di automated
generation while opportunistically marking certain functions as "put
the body in the .di file".
@inline anyone?
Andrei
I find the @inline confusing, people could mistook it with a force
inline attribute.
Something like @compiletime would be more clear for the tool and the
user.
I had the thought to use @embed, it's short, not taken, and you are embed
the function in the DI file. Another option is @include although that one
could be ambiguous.
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
