On 14-apr-10, at 16:08, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:34:38 -0400, Fawzi Mohamed <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:22:59 -0400, Jason House <[email protected]
> wrote:
Don suggested defining them the same way as C++ classes.
I like this, implicit casting to object would be very convenient,
but note that that precludes the possibility of ever having structs
implement interfaces (not that they should, but as of now it is
kind of possible to imagine).
I don't think this will ever happen. Since D is moving towards
outlawing referencing stack data in safeD, this would mean struct
interfaces are most likely illegal in safeD.
Add to this the fact that then structs need a vtable, and you have
started to stray from some of the benefits of structs. I just don't
see it being worth it. And I did want struct interfaces too.
We always have compile-time interfaces for structs (i.e. template
constraints) that also work on classes.
it makes sense, I wanted just to point out the consequence, so that
this a design decision is done being aware of that.
