On 13 February 2014 00:25, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 14:15:55 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:11, eles <eles@eles.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 03:28:57 UTC, Manu wrote:

On 12 February 2014 12:11, Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:

 On 12 February 2014 05:43, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com>
wrote:



I've changed my mind. Depending on a functional link-stripper sucks.
I think it's definitely useful, although I think it should be implemented
as a suite of flags, not just a single one. Sure, a convenience flag can
be
offered, but as an implementation detail, it should be a suite of flags.


I like this and I also think providing compiler switches (ie. without
naming the subset) as being acceptable.

However, what if I would need those switches for just one particular
module and the functions therein? How to compile only those modules with
the switches?

Only through manual compile/linking?


Yes, exactly as with C++ today. It shouldn't be an unfamiliar problem to
most.

How does that work with templates across modules?

I'm not sure how that would affect anything? Only a couple of runtime things would be unavailable, and ideally individually unavailable on different flags.