On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:54:15 -0400 bearophile <[email protected]> wrote:
> spir: > > > But for any reason, this logic is not pushed to the point of providing type > > hierarchy by subtyping. It would have been great for me, since much of the > > common functionality is generic. Without a type hierarchy, I need to > > duplicate it on each struct type, which is _bad_ (as any programmer knows > > ;-). > > Can you explain your use case better? I am curious. I have used a hierarchy > of structs in D in a small raytracer, to encode 3D objects. I cannot explain in detail, because it's still vague in my mind. It would be for a toy OO dynamic language. The root struct type would represent to root "element" (piece of data) type. Then, the whole D-struct hierarchy would mirror the source language's type hierarchy. I want a type hierarchy so that I can directly implement generic core language features (that a record can store any kind of element) and types (eg collections). Also, every element of the language itself would be a record-element, including types, methods, scopes... Denis -- -- -- -- -- -- -- vit esse estrany ☣ spir.wikidot.com
