On May 11, 2013 6:35 PM, "David Nadlinger" <see@klickverbot.at> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 11 May 2013 at 17:23:53 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>>
>> That... doesn't sound very nice to me.  How much of phobos are we
>> realistically going to need?
>
>
> All of it? Well, not quite, but large parts at least.
>
> If we are going to stick to the C subset of the language, there is little point in translating it to D in the first place.
>
> Of course, there will be some restrictions arising from the fact that the code base needs to work with D versions from a year back or so. But to me duplicating the whole standard library inside the compiler source seems like maintenance hell.
>
> David

I don't think it would be anything in the slightest at all.   For instance,  Bigint implementation is big,  BIG.  :)

What would be ported to the compiler may be influenced by BigInt,  but would be a limited subset of its functionality tweaked for the purpose of use in the front end.

I am more concerned from GDC's perspective of things.  Especially when it comes to building from hosts that may have phobos disabled (this is a configure switch).

Regards
--
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';