On 6 September 2013 19:40, eles <e...@eles.com> wrote: > 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?
And you rephrase that question? I think you asked it wrong. :) > 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. > I don't think that's true. Any compiler operations being moved into the library will be separate from the language keyword. eg: creal -> Complex!real. > 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. > C++ required a minimal runtime as it does emit library calls through code generation (see libcxxrt link earlier in this thread) - there are however compiler switches which mean that the c++ compiler will error if you try to use any of these features. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
