"Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce" <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote in message news:mailman.647.1440844869.13986.digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com...

> Just an idea to selectively @tag any classes or functions you want to export to C++, then let the
> conversion tool do the rest.  This is as opposed to going back to some sort of magicport.json format
> maintained outside the normal sources.

I'm just planning to implement this in dmd and have it dump out all extern(C++) declarations. (and structs and constants) 

On 2015-08-29 12:44, Daniel Murphy wrote:

> I'm just planning to implement this in dmd and have it dump out all
> extern(C++) declarations. (and structs and constants)

I'm pretty sure we already have a tool that generates C/C++ headers for D modules.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

"Jacob Carlborg"  wrote in message news:mrsigg$1574$1@digitalmars.com...

> I'm pretty sure we already have a tool that generates C/C++ headers for D modules.

Adam started one, I don't think it got to the point where it would work for this, and I don't agree that the json output is a good way to do it. 

On Saturday, 29 August 2015 at 16:07:37 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "Jacob Carlborg"  wrote in message news:mrsigg$1574$1@digitalmars.com...
>
>> I'm pretty sure we already have a tool that generates C/C++ headers for D modules.
>
> Adam started one, I don't think it got to the point where it would work for this, and I don't agree that the json output is a good way to do it.

I guess he means dstep...

On 2015-08-29 18:39, Laeeth Isharc wrote:

> I guess he means dstep...

No, this is a tool for generating C/C++ header files from D modules, DStep does the opposite.

BTW, I'm the author of DStep ;)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Sunday, 30 August 2015 at 18:44:48 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> No, this is a tool for generating C/C++ header files from D modules, DStep does the opposite.

I did one to the point where it basically worked for the support dmd had for C++ interop a couple years ago, but since that's changed so much it would probably be wholly inadequate now (if it even still works, since dmd changes the json output every so often. I'd prefer to do it with CT reflection if I were to start again).

On Sunday, 23 August 2015 at 05:17:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> We have made the switch from C++ DMD to D DMD!

Is there a rough prediction of when the use of phobos in ddmd will start to be accepted?

On 9/1/15 6:48 AM, "Luís Marques  <luis@luismarques.eu> wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 August 2015 at 05:17:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> We have made the switch from C++ DMD to D DMD!
>
> Is there a rough prediction of when the use of phobos in ddmd will start
> to be accepted?

I'm not a dmd dev, but I'm not sure it will be accepted, since phobos is very unstable. We have to be cautious about making dmd breakable easily by a change to phobos.

Of course, I think there is a baseline dmd/gdc/ldc that must be used to build dmd, so perhaps as long as you use phobos features that work there, it will be OK.

-Steve

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> [snip]
> I'm not a dmd dev, but I'm not sure it will be accepted, since phobos is
> very unstable. We have to be cautious about making dmd breakable easily by
> a change to phobos.
> [snip]

-Steve
>

Surely this is a code coverage issue then?
Are there any unit tests  in ddmd?

On 1 September 2015 at 15:57, Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>> I'm not a dmd dev, but I'm not sure it will be accepted, since phobos is
>> very unstable. We have to be cautious about making dmd breakable easily by
>> a change to phobos.
>> [snip]
>
> -Steve
>>
>
> Surely this is a code coverage issue then?
> Are there any unit tests  in ddmd?
>

>From how I see it, Phobos is constantly adding, silently breaking,
deprecating, and removing.  We need long term backwards compatibility, and Phobos just doesn't fit in that picture (yet).