On 2010-05-27 12:32, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:06:32 -0400, Bruno Medeiros
<brunodomedeiros+s...@com.gmail> wrote:
On 24/05/2010 16:45, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
In the past I have built a C++ library that abstracted features of
the OS. My goal was to make it possible to dynamically load a module
that abstracted things like setting the IP address of a network
interface. My modules used std::string instead of char * to lookup
services to get objects that implement the interface. Big mistake. On
a later version of the standard C++ runtime, the private
implementation of std::string changed, so the dynamically loaded
libraries crashed horribly. No change in string's interface, just the
private stuff changed, but because it's a template, the code that
uses it necessarily has to be aware of it. We ended up ditching the
standard C++ library's version of string, and used STLPort so we
could control the library.
I envision this same sort of problem would be likely with D
collection objects that were not used via interfaces.
I see no problem retrofitting a no-interface container into a formal
interface if so needed.
I don't understand this discussion: isn't the reason above pretty much
a dead-on hard requirement for the collections to have interfaces?
Something like, for example, an interface version of the range traits?
Only if you wish to have binary compatibility with dynamic libs. Such a
thing isn't likely today since dynamic libs aren't very well supported
in D, and even phobos or dcollections isn't a dynamic lib.
I've got my patch, for build Tango as a dynamic library on Mac, quite
recently included in trunk. And I've also have a patch for druntime and
Phobos in bugzilla just waiting to be included + one patch making it
easier creating dynamic libraries directly with DMD. I would say it's a
bad idea to still think that dynamic libraries aren't support, we have
to think forward and assume they will be supported.
And I have specifically decided not to use interfaces with ranges
because that makes them reference types. Ranges work well as value
types, but not well as reference types. Therefore, to use dcollections
as interfaces, you must not require the range traits.
-Steve
--
/Jacob Carlborg
