Am 10.04.2013 18:08, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
On 4/10/13 8:44 AM, Manu wrote:
On 10 April 2013 22:37, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
On 4/10/13 2:02 AM, Manu wrote:
I do use virtual functions, that's the point of classes. But most
functions are not virtual. More-so, most functions are trivial
accessors, which really shouldn't be virtual.
I'd say a valid style is to use free functions for non-virtual
methods. UFCS will take care of caller syntax.
Valid, perhaps. But would you really recommend that design pattern?
It seems a little obscure for no real reason. Breaks the feeling of the
OO encapsulation principle somewhat.
It may as well be a mistake that nonvirtual functions are at all part of
a class' methods. This has been quite painfully seen in C++ leading to
surprising conclusions: http://goo.gl/dqZrr.
I've started using UFCS more recently, but I'm still wary of overuse
leading to unnecessary obscurity.
UFCS is a "slam dunk" feature - simple and immensely successful. The
only bummer is that UFCS arrived to the scene late. If I designed D's
classes today, I'd only allow overridable methods and leave everything
else to free functions.
Andrei
Everyone seems to be having them, it is as if after realizing that in
many cases aggregation is better than inheritance, multi-methods is also
a better way to add attach behaviour to objects.
--
Paulo
