On Wed, 09 May 2012 21:12:53 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
<[email protected]> wrote:
"Adam Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I actually agree with you, im just telling you what I hear from PHB's.
I was just kinda rambling anyway ;) Not directed at any particular
poster.
We need some way to export the symbols without the underlying code, it
makes for faster compile times and having the API handy can be useful to
development tools.
However, my experience with PHB's is that as long as you don't send out
the actual source files but some form of sanitized header, the PHB's
don't
really care beyond that.
That'd why I think embedding a version of the source D files that has
been
semantically analyzed could be helpful, you can pull in the source for
CTFE as needed, but the only thing you have to actually ship out is the
library file itself, it just happens to have source files inside. In my
experience in the .NET world, this is good enough for the PHB's. Out of
sight, out of mind as they say. So what if it's trickery, we developers
get a benefit to, we don't have to wrangle include files.
Well, if that works for the PHBs, then it works for me (Hmm...Never
thought
I'd say something like that ;) )
Thinking about it more, I suppose it's debatable whether a PHB-comlpiant
obfuscator or a lib-with-embedded-source would be easier to implement and
deal with.
I'm a fan of embedded source as it's relatively easy to get from the
compiler when it's time to build the output file. No extra steps required.
:-)
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
