On Saturday, 27 May 2017 at 18:44:42 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Saturday, 27 May 2017 at 18:44:03 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
On Saturday, 27 May 2017 at 18:13:52 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Or did we leave behind your original question?
No. I am talking about language semantics. Are the semantics
for class and struct conflicting or can they be merged?
That is the question.
I am talking about the language, as specified, not the
implementation.
Ahem. As specified, classes are reference types, struct
aren't. What more is there to say?
Structs are reference types too. The specification is wrong.
I've seen this argument from you before, and it's incorrect.
Structs may adopt reference semantics if they aggregate pointers,
that's true. But they are not themselves reference types. Their
representation is laid out inline. Classes, OTOH, are always
references, to get at their memory you need an indirection. Thus,
if we were to merge classes and structs, we'd have to pick one or
the other.
