• Sean L. Palmer (19/19) Jan 28 2002 On the D page regarding structs it says:
• Walter (4/8) Jan 28 2002 I've been reluctant to do it because it then tends down the road to bein...
• Russell Borogove (7/20) Jan 28 2002 As currently implemented, if you write a class that doesn't
• Sean L. Palmer (8/28) Jan 29 2002 Yeah, ideally it'll get allocated on the stack as well, be directly
• Walter (4/35) Jan 29 2002 I knew if I added member functions, you'd want constructors, destructors...
• Walter (7/26) Jan 29 2002 some
• Juan Carlos Arevalo Baeza (9/20) Jan 29 2002 might
• Walter (3/7) Jan 29 2002 I've thought many times about building the link step into the compiler.
• Sean L. Palmer (5/12) Jan 30 2002 That sounds like the way of the future. ;) VC7's link time code
• Walter (5/19) Jan 30 2002 The reason for a separate linker historically has been limited memory an...
• Carlos Santander B. (20/20) Mar 23 2003 "Walter" escribió en el mensaje
• Walter (4/18) Mar 23 2003 you

"Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer iname.com> writes:

On the D page regarding structs it says:

a.. Member functions and static members are not allowed.

I'm wondering if there's any way I can talk you into allowing them in some
form, Walter?

As is, there's no explicit way to specify a lightweight class (one that
doesn't go through vtables), you're at the mercy of the compiler, just have
to hope it generates decent code, realizes it doesn't need a vtable at all,
and inlines properly.  None of the compilers I've ever used have been able
to guarantee that, they all have problems in some situations so I bet the
vtable would stay no matter what.

Definitely don't need runtime polymorphism in this case.  So the vtable
could never be generated for structs.  Member functions in structs is
however one feature I've gotten very accustomed to using in C++ and don't
think I could leave behind.  I use it all the time.  It's great to group
accessor code right with the object it's accessing.  If any data in the
struct must be kept synchronized somehow or depends on some other data in
the same struct, I make that private and make a gettor/settor function that
keeps it straight.

Sean

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer iname.com> wrote in message
news:a346q2$17k4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 On the D page regarding structs it says:

 a.. Member functions and static members are not allowed.

 I'm wondering if there's any way I can talk you into allowing them in some
 form, Walter?

I've been reluctant to do it because it then tends down the road to being
classes.

Russell Borogove <kaleja estarcion.com> writes:

Walter wrote:

 "Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer iname.com> wrote in message
 news:a346q2$17k4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
On the D page regarding structs it says:

a.. Member functions and static members are not allowed.

I'm wondering if there's any way I can talk you into allowing them in some
form, Walter?

 
 I've been reluctant to do it because it then tends down the road to being
 classes.

As currently implemented, if you write a class that doesn't
have any hierarchy (it inherits from nothing but Object and
nothing inherits from it), will the vtable be optimized away
per Sean's hopes for the ideal compiler? Or is that a future
feature?

-Russell B

"Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer iname.com> writes:

Yeah, ideally it'll get allocated on the stack as well, be directly
embeddable in another class (not by reference), etc,etc.

Classes have a lot of extra baggage that can sometimes be stripped away.

Sean


"Russell Borogove" <kaleja estarcion.com> wrote in message
news:3C564245.6040203 estarcion.com...
 Walter wrote:

 "Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer iname.com> wrote in message
 news:a346q2$17k4$1 digitaldaemon.com...

On the D page regarding structs it says:

a.. Member functions and static members are not allowed.

I'm wondering if there's any way I can talk you into allowing them in



some
form, Walter?

 I've been reluctant to do it because it then tends down the road to


being
 classes.

 As currently implemented, if you write a class that doesn't
 have any hierarchy (it inherits from nothing but Object and
 nothing inherits from it), will the vtable be optimized away
 per Sean's hopes for the ideal compiler? Or is that a future
 feature?

 -Russell B

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

I knew if I added member functions, you'd want constructors, destructors,
etc. <g>

"Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer iname.com> wrote in message
news:a35ohu$25ph$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Yeah, ideally it'll get allocated on the stack as well, be directly
 embeddable in another class (not by reference), etc,etc.

 Classes have a lot of extra baggage that can sometimes be stripped away.

 Sean


 "Russell Borogove" <kaleja estarcion.com> wrote in message
 news:3C564245.6040203 estarcion.com...
 Walter wrote:

 "Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer iname.com> wrote in message
 news:a346q2$17k4$1 digitaldaemon.com...

On the D page regarding structs it says:

a.. Member functions and static members are not allowed.

I'm wondering if there's any way I can talk you into allowing them in



 some
form, Walter?

 I've been reluctant to do it because it then tends down the road to


 being
 classes.

 As currently implemented, if you write a class that doesn't
 have any hierarchy (it inherits from nothing but Object and
 nothing inherits from it), will the vtable be optimized away
 per Sean's hopes for the ideal compiler? Or is that a future
 feature?

 -Russell B

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Russell Borogove" <kaleja estarcion.com> wrote in message
news:3C564245.6040203 estarcion.com...
 Walter wrote:

 "Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer iname.com> wrote in message
 news:a346q2$17k4$1 digitaldaemon.com...

On the D page regarding structs it says:

a.. Member functions and static members are not allowed.

I'm wondering if there's any way I can talk you into allowing them in



some
form, Walter?

 I've been reluctant to do it because it then tends down the road to


being
 classes.

 As currently implemented, if you write a class that doesn't
 have any hierarchy (it inherits from nothing but Object and
 nothing inherits from it), will the vtable be optimized away
 per Sean's hopes for the ideal compiler? Or is that a future
 feature?

Hmm. I had planned that the optimizer make them non-virtual calls, but I
hadn't gone as far in my thinking as eliminating the vtbl[]. That just might
be a really cool optimization.

"Juan Carlos Arevalo Baeza" <jcab roningames.com> writes:

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:a35tv0$29es$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Russell Borogove" <kaleja estarcion.com> wrote in message
 news:3C564245.6040203 estarcion.com...
 As currently implemented, if you write a class that doesn't
 have any hierarchy (it inherits from nothing but Object and
 nothing inherits from it), will the vtable be optimized away
 per Sean's hopes for the ideal compiler? Or is that a future
 feature?

 Hmm. I had planned that the optimizer make them non-virtual calls, but I
 hadn't gone as far in my thinking as eliminating the vtbl[]. That just

might
 be a really cool optimization.

   But... only the linker can know ultimately if a class has any
descendents, right?

   I mean, I believe you're still using a C-style linker, right? Are you
planning to change that?

Salutaciones,
                         JCAB

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Juan Carlos Arevalo Baeza" <jcab roningames.com> wrote in message
news:a36u7h$2q9c$1 digitaldaemon.com...
    But... only the linker can know ultimately if a class has any
 descendents, right?
    I mean, I believe you're still using a C-style linker, right? Are you
 planning to change that?

I've thought many times about building the link step into the compiler.

"Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer iname.com> writes:

That sounds like the way of the future.  ;)   VC7's link time code
generation is almost there.

Sean

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:a36uus$pqm$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Juan Carlos Arevalo Baeza" <jcab roningames.com> wrote in message
 news:a36u7h$2q9c$1 digitaldaemon.com...
    But... only the linker can know ultimately if a class has any
 descendents, right?
    I mean, I believe you're still using a C-style linker, right? Are you
 planning to change that?

 I've thought many times about building the link step into the compiler.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

The reason for a separate linker historically has been limited memory and
slow compilers. This is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

"Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer iname.com> wrote in message
news:a38jjn$197r$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 That sounds like the way of the future.  ;)   VC7's link time code
 generation is almost there.

 Sean

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:a36uus$pqm$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Juan Carlos Arevalo Baeza" <jcab roningames.com> wrote in message
 news:a36u7h$2q9c$1 digitaldaemon.com...
    But... only the linker can know ultimately if a class has any
 descendents, right?
    I mean, I believe you're still using a C-style linker, right? Are



you
 planning to change that?

 I've thought many times about building the link step into the compiler.

"Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294 msn.com> writes:

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:a36uus$pqm$1 digitaldaemon.com...
|
| "Juan Carlos Arevalo Baeza" <jcab roningames.com> wrote in message
| news:a36u7h$2q9c$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| >    But... only the linker can know ultimately if a class has any
| > descendents, right?
| >    I mean, I believe you're still using a C-style linker, right? Are you
| > planning to change that?
|
| I've thought many times about building the link step into the compiler.
|
|

What happened to this?

—————————————————————————
Carlos Santander


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 2003-03-17

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294 msn.com> wrote in message
news:b5kec7$156a$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> escribió en el mensaje
 news:a36uus$pqm$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 |
 | "Juan Carlos Arevalo Baeza" <jcab roningames.com> wrote in message
 | news:a36u7h$2q9c$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 | >    But... only the linker can know ultimately if a class has any
 | > descendents, right?
 | >    I mean, I believe you're still using a C-style linker, right? Are

you
 | > planning to change that?
 |
 | I've thought many times about building the link step into the compiler.
 |
 |

 What happened to this?

It's for the future!