On 01/30/2013 11:30 PM, TommiT wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 21:58:53 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
Also, because the "namespace_thingy"s have so much in common with
structs, I think it would be misleading to call them something else.
The problem of using empty struct variables is that they take up memory.
They have to, because you can make a pointer to a variable and then you
can dereference that variable. There has to be at least a byte of memory
to dereference.
No, that is not why. The only conceivable reason empty structs take up
space is so that different instances have different addresses.
So, really, the only zero-overhead way to do this is to introduce a new
keyword that creates something that you can't take the address of,
because it kind of doesn't exist (like a namespace). It exists only in
the sense that it can be used to tell the compiler which operators and
functions to call. That's what my namespace_thingy is.
