On Thu, 10 May 2012 14:32:27 -0400, deadalnix <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 10/05/2012 20:22, Timon Gehr a écrit :
On 05/10/2012 08:15 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:10:15 -0700, David Gileadi
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/10/12 11:01 AM, Adam Wilson wrote:
It does require some semantic information. And the solution I've seen
seen most talked about here is some kind of attribute similar to
@pure
that tells the compiler to include the implementation in the DI file.
I may be off-base here, but this strikes me as a good case for a
pragma. No?
Well, it's needs to be at a function level to be useful.
pragmas can apply to declarations.
The syntax is
pragma(identifier,...) Declaration
(Where Declaration can be the empty declaration, ';')
pragma(keepImplementation) void foo(){ ... }
You want to specify strip implementation, not keep implementation.
No, it's definitely keep implementation. By default, I want .di files to
contain nothing but interface. If I wanted the source by default, I
wouldn't be using .di files.
Strip implementation may break things. Keeping it cannot. The default
behavior should be on the safe side of the medal.
Current behavior is junk, there is no reason to save it.
-Steve
