On Tuesday, 16 June 2020 at 11:24:05 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 June 2020 at 09:15:10 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
[snip]
In the more longer-term, is the goal of the project to
implement a Typescript / Go interfaces like structural type
system in user space?
Yes. Other than allowing multiple interfaces, I think it's
already implemented.
I'm not familiar with what Typescript does, but doesn't Go
allow interfaces to be implemented by free-standing functions?
So does tardy.
That is a little bit more similar to open methods. This
requires the type inherit from the interface and implement
member functions.
There is no inheritance anywhere, otherwise that'd defeat the
point of the library in the first place. I used interfaces
because they exist and intuively make sense, and support classes
because why not. Otherwise it could be just structs and other
values with candidate UFCS functions.
I'm not that knowledgeable of Boost, but I see some
similarities with Boost's type_erasure library. However, one
main difference is that it is implemented with concepts, rather
than the equivalent of interfaces. I would guess using
interfaces has some benefits in terms of implementation since
you know exactly what functions need to be called. Something
like @models is very flexible, but that might be a downside.
Using an interface means using familiar syntax with the added
benefits of being able to write a signature like this:
int* fun(int*, int) @safe @nogc pure return scope const;
And then have all of those attributes and `this` modifiers used
in the vtable function pointer declarations. Overloading and UFCS
get dealt with naturally by usual language rules.
