• Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> Jun 26 2008

Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> writes:

Koroskin Denis Wrote:

 On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:02:39 +0400, Extrawurst <spam extrawurst.org> wrote:
 
 Walter Bright schrieb:
 Extrawurst wrote:
 Hey Walter,
 this is just a list of changes which were originally planned to be  
 integrated into D2.0 according to the slides you and Andrei presented  
 on DConference '07. So please give us a comment on what perhaps has  
 changed or when certain things are going to be addressed.
 A little insight on your roadmap would be great.

 (1) STRUCT opImplicitCastTo/From (p.21)
 ---------------------------------
 How do you want to solve the problem of overloading by return value  
 which would be necessary to solve something like the example in the  
 slides (p.21):

    struct S{
        int opImplicitCastTo(){...}
        float opImplicitCastTo(){...}
    }


 Still planning on it.


 So does it mean we gonna get overloading on different return types ?


 There was a suggestion to change a signature to something like this:
 struct S {
 	void opImplicitCastTo(ref float result) { ... }
 	void opImplicitCastTo(ref int result) { ... }
 }
 
 bacause overload on return value is basically unacceptable.


Yes, and the lack of orthogonality of the old/current system is annoying at
best.  The source code for Walnut was roughly 15% larger because of this.

I abandoned the project mostly because the code that I thought was being
generated was so vastly different from the code that was being generated.

For example, passing a 16-byte struct was being done by rep movsd'ing the
arguments while I was programming it envisioning xmm register usage for
"arguments" and closure-like behavior for "self" and "context".

I started reworking the whole project in fasm so I could write exactly what I
thought, but then abandoned the scripting engine altogether to the next project
about the time I finished writing the lexer because I became disinterested.