On 2009-10-01 12:29:39 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> said:
I think it's a good idea, but there should be a way to *override*
static functions.
That has the same risks. The problem right now is that in order to use
a class, you must absorb the definition of that class and that of each
superclass of it, all the way up to Object. With hijacking thwarted,
you can specify stuff in the base class that you can be sure will
continue to work the same in derived classes. I believe this makes
using classes quite a lot easier and safer.
But it breaks one pattern of mine. In the D/Objective-C bridge I have a
few static functions and variables that must be redefined for each
subclass defining an Objective-C interface. With your proposal I'd have
to give them a different name for each subclass.
For instance, the "objcClass" function in:
NSObject.objcClass
will give you a pointer to the Objective-C class NSObject, while in:
NSString.objcClass
it will give you a pointer to the Objective-C class NSString, because
objcClass has been reimplemented in the D version of the NSString class
even though it derives from NSObject which has its own.
If you can't override a static function, how do you implement this?
I'd suggest that a static function could be made final which would
remove the possibility of redefining it in a subclass. But in abscence
of "final", you should still be able to "override" a static function in
a subclass (perhaps the override keyword should be required).
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.com/
