• Janice Caron (14/14) Mar 07 2008 I see that structs now have destructors, according to the changelog for ...
• John C (4/24) Mar 07 2008 We don't, as yet. Walter's announcement says: "Yes, you read that right,...
• Janice Caron (15/17) Mar 07 2008 Gosh. But isn't the opAssign example wrong? It says:
• John C (2/20) Mar 07 2008 In the example, 'a' refers to an int. So no.
• Janice Caron (3/4) Mar 07 2008 So it does. I was confusing it with the previous example. Thanks for
• Bill Baxter (8/13) Mar 07 2008 But this looks wrong
• Robert Fraser (2/20) Mar 07 2008 So it should.

"Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:

I see that structs now have destructors, according to the changelog for D2.012.

How does that work? I wasn't even aware that they had /con/structors!
I've still been using static opCall for that (and hating doing so,
because it's such a kludge).

So do we get to use this() and ~this() now? Can we use new and delete
with structs? Can we use delete with structs on the stack?

Also, what about assignment and copy construction?

...and repeatedly returning a struct from a function (as in, e() calls
f(), which calls g(), which calls h(); h returns a struct, which
returns it to g, which returns it to f, which returns it to e). Will
those nested returns invoke a chain of copy constructors and
destructors? Or will it be optimised to just a single copy?

That's a lot of questions for one post. Sorry about that.

Oh - one more. What's a postblit?

John C <johnch_atms hotmail.com> writes:

Janice Caron wrote:
 I see that structs now have destructors, according to the changelog for D2.012.
 
 How does that work? I wasn't even aware that they had /con/structors!
 I've still been using static opCall for that (and hating doing so,
 because it's such a kludge).

We don't, as yet. Walter's announcement says: "Yes, you read that right, 
struct destructors but no struct constructors yet."

 
 So do we get to use this() and ~this() now? Can we use new and delete
 with structs? Can we use delete with structs on the stack?
 
 Also, what about assignment and copy construction?
 
 ...and repeatedly returning a struct from a function (as in, e() calls
 f(), which calls g(), which calls h(); h returns a struct, which
 returns it to g, which returns it to f, which returns it to e). Will
 those nested returns invoke a chain of copy constructors and
 destructors? Or will it be optimised to just a single copy?
 
 That's a lot of questions for one post. Sorry about that.
 
 Oh - one more. What's a postblit?

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/struct.html

"Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:

On 07/03/2008, John C <johnch_atms hotmail.com> wrote:
  > Oh - one more. What's a postblit?

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/struct.html

Gosh. But isn't the opAssign example wrong? It says:

    S* opAssign(ref const S s)
    {
        a = s.a;
        return this;
    }

but I rather think it should be

    S* opAssign(ref const S s)
    {
        a[] = s.a[];
        return this;
    }

since you don't /want/ this to share the same workspace as s. Am I
missing something, or is this a documentation bug?

John C <johnch_atms hotmail.com> writes:

Janice Caron wrote:
 Gosh. But isn't the opAssign example wrong? It says:
 
     S* opAssign(ref const S s)
     {
         a = s.a;
         return this;
     }
 
 but I rather think it should be
 
     S* opAssign(ref const S s)
     {
         a[] = s.a[];
         return this;
     }
 
 since you don't /want/ this to share the same workspace as s. Am I
 missing something, or is this a documentation bug?

In the example, 'a' refers to an int. So no.

"Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:

On 07/03/2008, John C <johnch_atms hotmail.com> wrote:
 In the example, 'a' refers to an int. So no.

So it does. I was confusing it with the previous example. Thanks for
the correction.

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Janice Caron wrote:
 On 07/03/2008, John C <johnch_atms hotmail.com> wrote:
 In the example, 'a' refers to an int. So no.

 
 So it does. I was confusing it with the previous example. Thanks for
 the correction.

But this looks wrong

"""
Struct assignment t=s is defined to be semantically equivalent to:

t = S.opAssign(s);
"""

Shouldn't that be t.opAssign(s)?

--bb

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 Janice Caron wrote:
 On 07/03/2008, John C <johnch_atms hotmail.com> wrote:
 In the example, 'a' refers to an int. So no.

 So it does. I was confusing it with the previous example. Thanks for
 the correction.

 
 But this looks wrong
 
 """
 Struct assignment t=s is defined to be semantically equivalent to:
 
 t = S.opAssign(s);
 """
 
 Shouldn't that be t.opAssign(s)?
 
 --bb

So it should.