• Dario (10/10) Jul 04 2002 ____________________
• Walter (5/15) Jul 04 2002 If
• Dario (6/20) Jul 04 2002 You wrote that the D source is interpreted as a whole. This looks like a...
• Walter (5/11) Jul 05 2002 the

"Dario" <supdar yahoo.com> writes:

____________________
class Derived: Base
{}

class Base
{}
_____________________

Compiler output:
Asserion failure: 'structsize >= 8' on line 412 in file 'glue.c'

We can't write a derived class before its super one. Is this intentional? If
it is, it seems very strange, doesn't it? Has this been reported already?

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Dario" <supdar yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ag1vgt$1n7l$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 ____________________
 class Derived: Base
 {}

 class Base
 {}
 _____________________

 Compiler output:
 Asserion failure: 'structsize >= 8' on line 412 in file 'glue.c'

 We can't write a derived class before its super one. Is this intentional?

If
 it is, it seems very strange, doesn't it? Has this been reported already?

It is intentional, but you should have gotten a diagnostic rather than the
assert notice.

"Dario" <supdar yahoo.com> writes:

 class Derived: Base
 {}

 class Base
 {}
 _____________________

 Compiler output:
 Asserion failure: 'structsize >= 8' on line 412 in file 'glue.c'

 We can't write a derived class before its super one. Is this


intentional?
 If it is, it seems very strange, doesn't it? Has this been reported


already?

 It is intentional, but you should have gotten a diagnostic rather than the
 assert notice.

You wrote that the D source is interpreted as a whole. This looks like an
exception. (And you hate exception, don't you?)
I know that there is no need for this to change: nobody is writing a base
class after a derived one. But IMHO this shouldn't be forbidden.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Dario" <supdar yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ag2d5m$2594$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It is intentional, but you should have gotten a diagnostic rather than


the
 assert notice.

 You wrote that the D source is interpreted as a whole. This looks like an
 exception. (And you hate exception, don't you?)
 I know that there is no need for this to change: nobody is writing a base
 class after a derived one. But IMHO this shouldn't be forbidden.

Yeah, I hate exceptions. But there did turn out to be some chicken-and-egg
problems.