On 01/23/2012 01:49 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:33:47 +0100, Timon Gehr <[email protected]> wrote:
On 01/23/2012 01:07 AM, so wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:39:23 +0200, so <[email protected]> wrote:
I have been asking that for some time now, i am afraid you won't get
much of an audience.
You can get rid of both additional allocation and indirection but it
is not pretty. We could definitely use some help/sugar on this.
http://www.artima.com/cppsource/backyard3.html
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Implementation_hiding_139625.html
There is another issue Walter forgot to mention in the article.
I think there might be a way but looks like we also loose the
"destructor".
Which means we are all the way back to the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opaque_pointer.
Walter, is there a way to get around destructor limitation?
This seems to work.
a.di:
final class A{
private this();
static A factory();
T1 publicMember1(int x);
T2 publicMember2(float y);
T3 publicField;
// ...
}
a.d:
class A{
static A factory(){return new A;}
T1 publicMember1(int x){ ... }
T2 publicMember2(float y){ ... }
T3 publicField;
// ...
private:
T1 field1;
T2 field2;
}
This will even work with plain new/this, as the allocation is done
in the constructor. The difficulty is that you can't build inheritable
pimpls.
Ah, good to know. One solution would be to just add some dummy space to
the class declaration (private void[256] dummy=void) so that the
implementation can use it for private members. (union{void[256] dummy;
struct{/*private_members*/}}) Of course, this is potentially wasteful.
