Daniel Keep wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:24:59 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
This has to go into object.d and be part of the runtime, where
std.range doesn't exist. There is nothing stopping you from calling:
streamOut(&outputrange.put);
So I'd rather have a sink function.
It must be a sink _object_ so it can hold its own state. And it must
support put() so it integrates with statically-bound output ranges.
interface OutRange
{
void put(... a number of overloads ...);
}
I see now, yes I agree (I think that was don's original request
anyways). That interface has to go in the runtime, though.
We may not be able to do this using templates... it has to be a
virtual function in Object to be on-par with toString. This means
struct interfaces are a requirement if you want to use ranges :(
We're in good shape actually. OutRange as a dynamic interface and an
implicit interface using .put against a struct will work just as well
with templates. (The template doesn't care whether obj.put(x) is a
virtual call or statically-bound call.)
Andrei
"We may not be able to do this using templates... it has to be a virtual
function in Object to be on-par with toString."
Note that toString is a virtual method. You are proposing replacing
toString with a template. You cannot have virtual template methods.
Ergo, "new toString" would be inaccessible without the actual type, and
certainly not at runtime.
The toStream that I have in mind is virtual and takes an interface of
type OutRange as outlined above.
Andrei
