• dsimcha (9/9) Nov 02 2009 http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP8
• Andrei Alexandrescu (4/15) Nov 02 2009 I think ClassInfo should be merged with TypeInfo. There should be no
• dsimcha (4/19) Nov 02 2009 At first glance (not having thought about it in detail) I tend to agree....
• grauzone (6/17) Nov 02 2009 I'd say it's a good idea. We have all this crap like TypeInfo.init,

dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:

http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP8

Abstract:

Currently, the layout of D's runtime type info, or RTTI, is defined in
object.d. The details of how the fields of each instantiation of these classes
are populated are buried deep inside the compiler. If ClassInfo and TypeInfo
were instead template classes inheriting from some non-templated abstract base
class that defined the interface and field layout, any compile-time
introspection feature could trivially be added to RTTI and made available at
runtime.

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

dsimcha wrote:
 http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP8
 
 Abstract:
 
 Currently, the layout of D's runtime type info, or RTTI, is defined in
 object.d. The details of how the fields of each instantiation of these classes
 are populated are buried deep inside the compiler. If ClassInfo and TypeInfo
 were instead template classes inheriting from some non-templated abstract base
 class that defined the interface and field layout, any compile-time
 introspection feature could trivially be added to RTTI and made available at
 runtime.

I think ClassInfo should be merged with TypeInfo. There should be no 
more classinfo member, only e.g. meta.typeid(type) and meta.typeid(object).

Andrei

dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:

== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org)'s article
 dsimcha wrote:
 http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP8

 Abstract:

 Currently, the layout of D's runtime type info, or RTTI, is defined in
 object.d. The details of how the fields of each instantiation of these classes
 are populated are buried deep inside the compiler. If ClassInfo and TypeInfo
 were instead template classes inheriting from some non-templated abstract base
 class that defined the interface and field layout, any compile-time
 introspection feature could trivially be added to RTTI and made available at
 runtime.

 I think ClassInfo should be merged with TypeInfo. There should be no
 more classinfo member, only e.g. meta.typeid(type) and meta.typeid(object).
 Andrei

At first glance (not having thought about it in detail) I tend to agree. 
However,
this is somewhat orthogonal to what I'm proposing.  What I'm proposing has more
to
do with the implementation of RTTI than the interface to it.

grauzone <none example.net> writes:

dsimcha wrote:
 http://prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP8
 
 Abstract:
 
 Currently, the layout of D's runtime type info, or RTTI, is defined in
 object.d. The details of how the fields of each instantiation of these classes
 are populated are buried deep inside the compiler. If ClassInfo and TypeInfo
 were instead template classes inheriting from some non-templated abstract base
 class that defined the interface and field layout, any compile-time
 introspection feature could trivially be added to RTTI and made available at
 runtime.

I'd say it's a good idea. We have all this crap like TypeInfo.init, 
TypeInfo.equals/compare/hash for which there's separate implementations 
for each type (like TypeInfo_f in ti_float.d; repeat for each type). 
With templated TypeInfos, all these could be trivially provided by the 
same code.