http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463



--- Comment #102 from Walter Bright <bugzi...@digitalmars.com> 2011-04-14 
14:49:49 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #100)
> (In reply to comment #99)
> > (In reply to comment #98)
> > > The work on improving introspection should be done anyway.
> > 
> > The trouble with using runtime introspection for this is it'll be slow, and 
> > the
> > scanning of data needs to be really fast.
> I understand. That still means (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the
> right place for specialized code should be at TypeInfo level. Also, I wonder 
> if
> there's a need for a DSL. Wouldn't automatically-generated Typeinfo methods
> suffice?

I don't really understand your comment. Are you saying the TypeInfo should do
introspection at runtime to generate specialized data tables for the gc
(obviously caching it so it is done only once per type)? This is certainly a
possible approach.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to