what prevents LDC from accepting a new import statement to directly import C headers without the need to convert them to D first?

given the progress in -betterC it greatly simplify gradual D rewrites of C software into D.

On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 13:49:28 UTC, tim wrote:
> what prevents LDC from accepting a new import statement to directly import C headers without the need to convert them to D first?
>
> given the progress in -betterC it greatly simplify gradual D rewrites of C software into D.

See https://github.com/Syniurge/Calypso for an LDC fork aiming at providing this functionality (not just C headers, C++ ones to).

On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 14:39:16 UTC, kinke wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 13:49:28 UTC, tim wrote:
>> what prevents LDC from accepting a new import statement to directly import C headers without the need to convert them to D first?
>>
>> given the progress in -betterC it greatly simplify gradual D rewrites of C software into D.
>
> See https://github.com/Syniurge/Calypso for an LDC fork aiming at providing this functionality (not just C headers, C++ ones to).

sorry i forgot to mention calypso, i was aware of it. but from what i understand it aims to provide c++ interop which is probably much harder.
the question was aiming at the question how complex C only support is and if its not a low hanging fruit.

On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 21:27:17 UTC, tim wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 14:39:16 UTC, kinke wrote:
>> On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 13:49:28 UTC, tim wrote:
>>> what prevents LDC from accepting a new import statement to directly import C headers without the need to convert them to D first?
>>>
>>> given the progress in -betterC it greatly simplify gradual D rewrites of C software into D.
>>
>> See https://github.com/Syniurge/Calypso for an LDC fork aiming at providing this functionality (not just C headers, C++ ones to).
>
> sorry i forgot to mention calypso, i was aware of it. but from what i understand it aims to provide c++ interop which is probably much harder.
> the question was aiming at the question how complex C only support is and if its not a low hanging fruit.

I'd guess way too complex to be considered low-hanging fruit, and that interest in such a direction would IMO be better invested in Calypso.

On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 21:27:17 UTC, tim wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 14:39:16 UTC, kinke wrote:
>> On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 13:49:28 UTC, tim wrote:
>>> what prevents LDC from accepting a new import statement to directly import C headers without the need to convert them to D first?
>>>
>>> given the progress in -betterC it greatly simplify gradual D rewrites of C software into D.
>>
>> See https://github.com/Syniurge/Calypso for an LDC fork aiming at providing this functionality (not just C headers, C++ ones to).
>
> sorry i forgot to mention calypso, i was aware of it. but from what i understand it aims to provide c++ interop which is probably much harder.
> the question was aiming at the question how complex C only support is and if its not a low hanging fruit.

There's talk that one of the companies using D is working on this, and may present it at DConf, in six weeks:

https://forum.dlang.org/post/uhoezlyijoibwdaismah@forum.dlang.org

On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 14:39:16 UTC, kinke wrote:

> See https://github.com/Syniurge/Calypso for an LDC fork aiming at providing this functionality (not just C headers, C++ ones to).

Swift is doing something similar by somehow embedded the Clang compiler.

--
/Jacob Carlborg

On Thursday, 15 March 2018 at 21:27:17 UTC, tim wrote:
> sorry i forgot to mention calypso, i was aware of it. but from what i understand it aims to provide c++ interop which is probably much harder.

Maybe it already handles C headers just fine?