Le 10/05/2012 18:56, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
There is already a better tool -- cp. I ask again, what is the benefit of .di generation if it is mostly a glorified (faulty?) copy operation?
Please stop with that cp argument, this is complete bullshit.
As Adam points out in his original post, ensuring CTFE availability may not be (and is likely not) why you are creating a .di file.
You want to create a di file to hide implementation of some functionality to the user of you lib. The better approach is to mark such code as this.
Note that in C/C++ you maintain headers manually. It is already a big improvement.
Plus, what isn't CTFEable today may be CTFEable tomorrow.
Good point.
