This is what I am actually doing at the moment, but I thougth
that in a modern language like D, it is possible to have non-null
references to avoid such constructs with assert.
My last hope was that an explicit ref would allow me both:
non-null references _and_ lvalues, at least for objects.
That is very sad. Any possibility that this might change?
I really like that objects are implicit references and so i would
not use structs, but it looks like i have no choice if i would
avoid asserts..
On Monday, 16 April 2012 at 21:34:34 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/16/2012 11:25 PM, Namespace wrote:
Hi,
I have a few questions about D and could use some help. For
instance, how can i rebuild such a behavior?
class Foo {
public:
Foo(const Bar& b) {
At C++ you can ensure that a reference is requested and must
not
null.
Nevertheless lvalues are functional, which means Foo(Bar(42))
would operate just as good as
Bar b(42);
Foo(b);
The same procedure doesn't seem to operate with const ref,
instead you can only use ref. But in this case Ivalues doesn't
operate.
Because of the fact that in D all objects are indication of
references I thought that I simply didn't need a storage class.
But then I recognized that at my D equivalent…
class Foo {
public:
this(Bar b) {
…null can also be passed.
That case I would like to prevent, but at the same time allow
Ivalues. How does that work in D classes?
As far as I know this operates with structs, but shouldn't it
be
possible with classes and objects too?
Would be really nice if anyone had an advice for me.
You could do this:
this(Bar b)in{assert(b !is null);}body{
