On Monday, 7 September 2015 at 22:21:28 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Monday, 7 September 2015 at 22:02:47 UTC, Prudence wrote:
>> Oh, and who says you couldn't keep both systems?
>
> Nobody. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from defining your one constants and bindings. I think you should actually do it and see for yourself the pros and cons in practice.

Which is why I asked is there is an easy way to do it, and you replied that essentially that it shouldn't be changed because it would change things.

On Monday, 7 September 2015 at 23:11:36 UTC, Prudence wrote:
> I asked is there is an easy way to do it, and you replied that essentially that it shouldn't be changed because it would change things.

I also said:

>> I guessing one would need a D or C parser to deal with all this?
> hackerpilot's dfix would be the starting point.

https://github.com/Hackerpilot/dfix

On Monday, 7 September 2015 at 22:02:47 UTC, Prudence wrote:
>
> Again, it's called progress. Why keep using the same defunct system for endless years simply because that's the way it was done?

Any C library binding should maintain the same interface as the C library as much as possible. That way any existing C code can be directly ported to D with minimal modification. If you then want to build a wrapper on top of that to make it more D-like, that's perfectly fine, but the binding itself shouldn't be D-ified.

On Monday, 7 September 2015 at 19:06:48 UTC, Prudence wrote:

> It's called encapsulation.

Do you have any idea how much I struggled when I try to use enums in OpenTK library because they were "encapsulated" ?
Whenever I read OpenGL tutorials I have figure out which enum-name they used as container...

On Tuesday, 8 September 2015 at 17:22:44 UTC, NX wrote:
>  I have figure out

typo:
...I had to figure out...