On 16/02/2016 8:29 PM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
I agree with the principle, but not as a library function, because:
1. you want virtual functions to work out ok
virtual functions don't even need mangling. But even if they did it
would work just fine anyway.
2. making D more reliant on macroish string processing is not good
It's not macroish string processing, it's embedding a subset of C++
declarations like a DSL. The difference is that the C++ can be fully
type-checked and semantically analysed, errors will not leak into the
generated source.
You would need something along the lines of:
1. «extern "C++"» the essence of the class definition in plain C++ syntax
2. add to this syntax a translation for each parameter what it means in D.
E.g.
extern "C++" {
class X {
mutable int rc;
virtual func1(const A* ptr); @reinterpret(ptr, head_const_ptr!A)
virtual func2(const A* ptr); @reinterpret(ptr, const A*)
virtual func3(A* ptr);
virtual func4(const A* ptr); @reinterpret(ptr, const_rc!A*)
};
}
We don't 'need' compiler support beyond what we have, for any of this.
