Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Max Samukha wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:12:39 +0800, Lionello Lunesu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 20-10-2009 6:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
you guys think?
I don't agree with this one.
There's extra cost involved, and the added keyword makes that clear.
Also, somebody mentioned using 'new' to allocate structs on the heap;
I've never actually done that, but it sounds like using 'new' would
be the perfect way to do just that.
L.
I don't think the extra cost should be emphasized with 'new' every
time you instantiate a class. For example, in C#, they use 'new' for
creating structs on stack (apparently to make them consistent with
classes, in a silly way).
I think the rarer cases when a class instance is allocated in-place (a
struct on heap) can be handled by the library.
BTW, why "in-situ" is better in this context than the more common
"in-place"? Would be nice to know.
The term originated with this:
class A {
InSitu!B b;
...
}
meaning that B is embedded inside A. But I guess InPlace is just as good.
Andrei
I actually do not understand what InSitu is supposed to mean.
I like the name Scope, but InPlace works for me.
