| |
 | Posted by Sean Kelly
in reply to David Nadlinger |  Permalink Reply |
|
Sean Kelly 
Posted in reply to David Nadlinger
| On May 11, 2012, at 12:24 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On 11 May 2012, at 21:16, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> It seems that the declarations in the various version branches of core.sys.posix.dlfcn are identical unless I'm seriously overlooking something. Can we simplify this file?
>
> I haven't looked at the file in question, but I think Sean generally prefers it this way, because it supposedly makes keeping our modules in sync with the respective platform headers easier.
dlfcn is a part of the XSI extensions to the Posix spec, meaning that it's not required to exist on a platform that claims Posix compliance. When we add support for a new OS, I don't want people to think they can call dlopen() if it's not actually supported--I'd rather have them get a compile error and submit a ticket to have the declarations investigated/added.
Also, I don't want to have to rewrite portions of a module when adding support for a new platform. The current approach does mean a lot of duplication in some cases, but it's the most foolproof approach I've come up with.
Finally, I do think it's easier to have the declarations for all OSes in one file instead of having core.sys.posix.dlfcn publicly import core.sys.darwin.dlfcn, core.sys.linux.dlfcn, etc. It's easier to see at a glance what's portable across OSes I care about, which OSes haven't had declarations filled out somewhere, etc.
_______________________________________________
D-runtime mailing list
D-runtime@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/d-runtime
|
