Simen kjaeraas Wrote: > Jim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm only discussing the heap/stack difference. > > In D you are allowed to safely put your structs on the heap, and > unsafely put your classes on the stack. What more do you want? > > Also, a D struct is POD. It has no vtable, it does not support > subtyping except via alias this, and it is simply a different > beast from classes. This is a good thing, as you often want such > a light-weight abstraction. How would you suppose we retain this > if we were to abolish this dichotomy? > > -- > Simen
Oh? "All class-based objects are dynamically allocatedunlike in C++, there is no way to allocate a class object on the stack." - The D Programming Language, chapter 6. The lightweight nature of structs is very appealing though. I like that very much of course. Couldn't that be optimised by the compiler alone knowing that a class wasn't derived?
