On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 12:16:43 UTC, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 12:05:51 UTC, amber wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible in D to have inheritance using value types,
i.e. structs?
No runtime polymorphism, but a kind of sub typing via alias
this.
struct S { void
On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 12:05:51 UTC, amber wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible in D to have inheritance using value types, i.e.
structs?
No runtime polymorphism, but a kind of sub typing via alias this.
struct S { void foo() { writeln(S.foo); }
struct T { S s; alias s this; }
T t;
t.foo();
Hi,
Is it possible in D to have inheritance using value types, i.e.
structs?
Also I don't quite understand how copy ctors work in D. Do I need
to implement opAssign(S other) {}, or this(this) {} and what's
the difference between these two?
Thanks,
Amber
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:05:50 +, amber wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible in D to have inheritance using value types, i.e. structs?
Also I don't quite understand how copy ctors work in D. Do I need to
implement opAssign(S other) {}, or this(this) {} and what's the
difference between these two?
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:19:39 +, ketmar wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:05:50 +, amber wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible in D to have inheritance using value types, i.e.
structs?
Also I don't quite understand how copy ctors work in D. Do I need to
implement opAssign(S other) {}, or
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:05:50 +, amber wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible in D to have inheritance using value types, i.e. structs?
Also I don't quite understand how copy ctors work in D. Do I need to
implement opAssign(S other) {}, or this(this) {} and what's the
difference between these two?
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 06:22:05PM +, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:05:50 +, amber wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible in D to have inheritance using value types, i.e.
structs?
Also I don't quite understand how copy ctors work in D. Do I need to
Sending this again, got an error the first time and it appears like it
was not sent.
On 2012-02-04 21:48, Simen Kjærås wrote:
I see. There's a hint in the error message: function expected [...],
not module. Struct is the name of a module, so the compiler thinks
you want to access something
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:58:40 +0100, Vidar Wahlberg cani...@exent.net
wrote:
Also, is this really ambiguous? Are there any cases where you can have a
module name followed by a parentheses, i.e. module(?
Not that I know.
I cannot seem to recreate this error message. Which version of the
On 2012-02-05 14:16, Simen Kjærås wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:58:40 +0100, Vidar Wahlberg cani...@exent.net
wrote:
Also, is this really ambiguous? Are there any cases where you can have
a module name followed by a parentheses, i.e. module(?
Not that I know.
Possibly something that could
On 2012-02-05 15:19, Daniel Murphy wrote:
The names only need to match if the compiler/build tool has to find the
module itself. If you call the compiler with all modules listed:
gdc bar.d Foo.d etc.d
then it should be able to work it out. (This is how it works with dmd,
anyway. GDC is
I guess you've found a bug then. :)
Vidar Wahlberg cani...@exent.net wrote in message
news:jgm7sh$k4u$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 2012-02-05 15:19, Daniel Murphy wrote:
The names only need to match if the compiler/build tool has to find the
module itself. If you call the compiler with all
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:04:50 +0100, Vidar Wahlberg cani...@exent.net
wrote:
This code does not compile:
Bar.d:6: Error: function expected before (), not module Struct of type
void
Bar.d:6: Error: constructor Foo.Foo.this (Struct s) is not callable
using argument types (_error_)
Why is
So why not just use classes? I've understood it as there may be a
performance gain by using structs over classes, and in my program Point
and Coordinate are used heavily.
The other big difference is value vs. reference type.
You can use alias this to achieve something like struct inheritance.
Good day.
I know inheritance is a misleading word as there's no such thing when
it comes to structs, but I couldn't think of a better description for
this problem:
Let's say I got a struct for a location on a 2-dimensional plane:
struct Point {
int x;
int y;
}
Further I also need to
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:38:30 +0100, Vidar Wahlberg cani...@exent.net
wrote:
Good day.
I know inheritance is a misleading word as there's no such thing when
it comes to structs, but I couldn't think of a better description for
this problem:
Let's say I got a struct for a location on a
On 2012-02-04 13:06, Simen Kjærås wrote:
It seems that what you want is alias this:
Thank you both, that's exactly what I needed.
Leeching a bit more on the thread:
Going back to the method:
int somethingNifty(Point p) {
return p.x + p.y;
}
Let's say I have the following code:
for (x; 0 ..
Vidar Wahlberg:
Leeching a bit more on the thread:
Going back to the method:
int somethingNifty(Point p) {
return p.x + p.y;
}
Let's say I have the following code:
for (x; 0 .. 10) {
for (y; 0 .. 10) {
Point p = {x, y};
somethingNifty(p);
}
}
[How] can you
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:55:55 +0100, Vidar Wahlberg cani...@exent.net
wrote:
On 2012-02-04 13:06, Simen Kjærås wrote:
It seems that what you want is alias this:
Thank you both, that's exactly what I needed.
Leeching a bit more on the thread:
Going back to the method:
int
On 2012-02-04 14:45, Simen Kjærås wrote:
Like bearophile said, Point(x, y) should work - assuming you have
defined no other constructors for Point.
You are correct, my apologies for not testing more thoroughly.
Let me try again, explaining the real issue:
I have 3 files:
-- Bar.d --
import
On 02/04/2012 03:38 AM, Vidar Wahlberg wrote:
Let's say I got a struct for a location on a 2-dimensional plane:
struct Point {
int x;
int y;
}
Further I also need to represent a location in a 3-dimensional space:
struct Coordinate {
int x;
int y;
int z;
}
If these were classes
On 02/04/2012 08:25 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
The following templatizes the coordinate types, but you could use put
write everywhere:
That should be ... you could write *ints* everywhere.
Ali
Kagamin пишет:
Weed Wrote:
If you do not want to initialize repeatedly matrix inside the sub, which
often cause each other, must be static matrices or declared as global
(in relation to these procedures). You agree with that?
What's problem? If you want static or global variables, you have
Kagamin пишет:
Weed Wrote:
If you do not want to initialize repeatedly matrix inside the sub, which
often cause each other, must be static matrices or declared as global
(in relation to these procedures). You agree with that?
What's problem? If you want static or global variables, you
Weed Wrote:
The problem is not in use templates.
Templates are implementing some of the functionality of 2 types of
structures matrices (normal and dynamic). But the structures do not
inherit, then to add functionality matrix to other entities ( pixel,
image etc) sites will have their
Kagamin пишет:
Weed Wrote:
The problem is not in use templates.
Templates are implementing some of the functionality of 2 types of
structures matrices (normal and dynamic). But the structures do not
inherit, then to add functionality matrix to other entities ( pixel,
image etc) sites will
Kagamin пишет:
Weed Wrote:
that is, suppose that after some action should get a matrix matrix3x1
Well... if you want to template every piece of your code, this can
cause disaster, so I think, this is not very good design. For
example, multiplication method will be duplicated N*N*N times for
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:24:34 -0500, Kagamin wrote:
Static constructor can execute any valid D statements including construction
of objects.
A static constructor (also known as the Module constructor) executes at
program run-time and not at program compile-time. I think Weed wants the
ability
Weed Wrote:
I agree.
In my case I chose to structure rather than a class because it can be
initialized at compile time.
But now I thing must be allowed to deploy class in the default data
segment. And add the possibility of creating a object of class at
compile time.
If you want to
Weed wrote:
I should explain why it's important for me:
For example, I am making a matrix object(s)
It should be:
- any size
- with ability of making matrix instance of a given size in compile time.
- ability of creating matrix instance in runtime.
I have decided to make it struct because I
Weed:
Planned in the future to implement inheritance of structs or the static
creation of classes?
Inheritance of structs: I think it's not planned. Structs in D are meant to be
used for different things than classes.
Yet, as time passes structs are gaining more power: you can't believe that
bearophile пишет:
Weed:
Planned in the future to implement inheritance of structs or the
static creation of classes?
Inheritance of structs: I think it's not planned. Structs in D are
meant to be used for different things than classes.
Yet, as time passes structs are gaining more power:
Bill Baxter пишет:
2008/12/16 Weed resume...@mail.ru:
I should explain why it's important for me:
For example, I am making a matrix object(s)
It should be:
- any size
- with ability of making matrix instance of a given size in compile time.
- ability of creating matrix instance in runtime.
I
Bill Baxter пишет:
2008/12/16 Weed resume...@mail.ru:
I should explain why it's important for me:
For example, I am making a matrix object(s)
It should be:
- any size
- with ability of making matrix instance of a given size in compile time.
- ability of creating matrix instance in runtime.
I
34 matches
Mail list logo
