On 2/21/2016 9:09 AM, Elie Morisse via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Saturday, 20 February 2016 at 17:34:48 UTC, Nicolas F. wrote: >> This is really cool and an interesting project, though I've got one >> concern: How will this fit in with the rest of the C++ efforts done >> upstream? (...) or is the goal to upstream these changes and make them >> an officially supported feature? > > The two efforts are independent, and the main issue with Calypso's > approach: it's tied to LDC, LLVM and Clang. Although I had a slight hope > that the approach would get recognized as allowing perfect interfacing > with C++ incl. things unthinkable with the « from scratch » approach > (like C++ template instantiation) and give D an edge that would probably > be sufficient to make lots and lots of people switch from C++ to D, as > long as DMD is there and a GDC/GCC version isn't proved feasible there's > no question about whether this approach should get officially endorsed > or not, and nevertheless the current efforts towards better C++ support > in DMD should still yield important results. > > Calypso will exist as a LDC plugin, and yes code using Calypso features > will only be build-able by LDC+Calypso. > >> As I see it the goal here is to spearhead a working Qt <-> D >> interaction, but how would this be used in production? Would Calypso >> simply be run to generate bindings > > The goal of Calypso is to make any C++ library of any complexity usable > in D straightaway, and there's no binding involved. > > moc was a barrier for Qt because it only parses C++ code, and Qt's C++ > API can hardly be used without the code moc generates. Is there anything preventing Calypso from turning into a code and interface generator? Making it an application that is part of the build rather than a plug in to ldc would make it available to both dmd and gdc users, no?