I read in the documentation
"Static constructors are used to initialize static class members
with values that cannot be computed at compile time"
I try to understand the design of the following code:
---
class OpenAL
{
static string[int] ALErrorLookup;
static Object mutex;
// Initialize static variables
static this ()
{ ALErrorLookup = [
0xA001: "AL_INVALID_NAME"[],
0xA002: "AL_ILLEGAL_ENUM",
0xA002: "AL_INVALID_ENUM",
0xA003: "AL_INVALID_VALUE",
0xA004: "AL_ILLEGAL_COMMAND",
0xA004: "AL_INVALID_OPERATION",
0xA005: "AL_OUT_OF_MEMORY"
];
mutex = new Object();
}
static anotherfunc()
{}
static Object getMutex()
{ return mutex;
}
}
---
At this point, I have not looked up Object, guess must be a
class. It seems to me that ALErrorLookup can be computed at
compile time... So the constructor is static because mutex "can
not be computed at compiled time"?
The idea of the dev (from context) is to that this class will
just be a wrapper, no instance necessary. So anotherfunc(), which
does the main work, is static and everything goes this way.
Then getMutex returns the static mutex when necessary... Have not
looked that up yet either.
But, I don't know, i have a feeling that this is over
complicated. For example, can't we have AlErrorlook-up
initialized another way in D, a static mutex in the getMutex
function directly (with if (mutex == null) {mutex = new Object()}
.
I don't know, is it the proper D way? And also, when we have
those classes with everything static, does it even make sense to
have a class? This module actually contains only this class
(https://tinyurl.com/yxt2xw23) Shouldn't we have one module with
normal functions?
ANY input is learning material for me. Thanks.
