On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 17:09:03 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
eles, el 6 de September a las 16:20 me escribiste:
On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 14:09:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>On 6 September 2013 14:13, Dicebot <pub...@dicebot.lv> wrote:
>>On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 12:25:56 UTC, eles wrote:
>>>
>>>On Friday, 6 September 2013 at 10:43:38 UTC, Iain Buclaw
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>On 6 September 2013 10:35, eles <e...@eles.com> wrote:
LDC used to have a --no-runtime switch or something like that,
that
aborted compilation if a call to the runtime was emitted. I
That's good, but is rather a workaround for a limitation of the
language. Is D the first language with a compiler unable to
compile its own standard library? There is no guarantee in the
language that one day even the most innocent operation in the
language won't require the standard library and what compiles
with "--no-runtime" today might as well not compile tomorrow.
In C or C++, while the standard library is part of the language
standard, is not part of the language per sé. It is not part of
the compiler, after all. It is provided with.
don't know
if it still does, but that's extremely useful if you want to
use the
D subset that only generates assembly without calling to
external
functions. D runtime is mostly written in D, and for obvious
reasons
can't use those language constructions that uses the features
you are
implementing. So is possible (although extremely inconvenient
right
now).
This will likely be the most limiting issue for the embedded
world.
