• Nikhil Jacob (8/8) Dec 18 2016 In C, we can define a struct without body in an include file and
• Nicholas Wilson (2/10) Dec 18 2016 Yes.
• ketmar (2/2) Dec 18 2016 i bet that just trying this with D compiler will take less time
• Nikhil Jacob (3/5) Dec 18 2016 I did try but it seems to give compilation failure... Let me try
• Ali (13/18) Dec 19 2016 What're you trying to do here?
• Nikhil Jacob (4/19) Dec 19 2016 I was trying to do something similar to pimlp idiom.

Nikhil Jacob <nikhiljaco gmail.com> writes:

In C, we can define a struct without body in an include file and 
use pointer to that structure

For examples in public header file.

struct data;
data* new_data();


We can then define the elements of struct data privately inside 
the implementation of library.

Can we do this in D without using void* ?

Nicholas Wilson <iamthewilsonator hotmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 19 December 2016 at 05:51:09 UTC, Nikhil Jacob wrote:
 In C, we can define a struct without body in an include file 
 and use pointer to that structure

 For examples in public header file.

 struct data;
 data* new_data();


 We can then define the elements of struct data privately inside 
 the implementation of library.

 Can we do this in D without using void* ?

Yes.

ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:

i bet that just trying this with D compiler will take less time 
than writing forum post.

Nikhil Jacob <nikhiljaco gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 19 December 2016 at 06:21:10 UTC, ketmar wrote:
 i bet that just trying this with D compiler will take less time 
 than writing forum post.

I did try but it seems to give compilation failure... Let me try 
once more and I will get back with more details.

Ali <something something.com> writes:

On Monday, 19 December 2016 at 06:42:27 UTC, Nikhil Jacob wrote:
 On Monday, 19 December 2016 at 06:21:10 UTC, ketmar wrote:
 i bet that just trying this with D compiler will take less 
 time than writing forum post.

 I did try but it seems to give compilation failure... Let me 
 try once more and I will get back with more details.

What're you trying to do here?

Forward declarations in C++ are used to solve a few different 
things:
1. Reduce build times (unneeded in D AFAIK)
2. Break cyclic references (unneeded in D again?)
3. Give APIs visibility (D's modules and Access layers solve this)
4. Maintain binary compatibility while allowing internal data 
changes (aka pimlp idiom) <-- This I believe you cannot do in D - 
https://wiki.dlang.org/Access_specifiers_and_visibility (someone 
correct me if I'm wrong)

I've seen something about .di files in D. But they seem flakey a 
bit.

Nikhil Jacob <nikhiljaco gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 19 December 2016 at 10:14:49 UTC, Ali wrote:
 On Monday, 19 December 2016 at 06:42:27 UTC, Nikhil Jacob wrote:
 [...]

 What're you trying to do here?

 Forward declarations in C++ are used to solve a few different 
 things:
 1. Reduce build times (unneeded in D AFAIK)
 2. Break cyclic references (unneeded in D again?)
 3. Give APIs visibility (D's modules and Access layers solve 
 this)
 4. Maintain binary compatibility while allowing internal data 
 changes (aka pimlp idiom) <-- This I believe you cannot do in D 
 - https://wiki.dlang.org/Access_specifiers_and_visibility 
 (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

 I've seen something about .di files in D. But they seem flakey 
 a bit.

I was trying to do something similar to pimlp idiom.

But after thinking over it, I found a better way in D.

Thanks for pointing to the wiki