DMD 0.177 release

Jarrett Billingsley kb3ctd2 at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 13 09:02:37 PST 2006


"Walter Bright" <newshound at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:elnv14$r2d$1 at digitaldaemon.com...

> For whatever the merits of opCall vs this(), efficiency is NOT a problem 
> with either, and is not a reason to choose one or the other. The generated 
> code is the same.
>
> Under the hood, they are the same. Both take a hidden pointer to where the 
> result is stored. The rest is window dressing.

Alright then.  All I've got then is the orthogonality argument.  But you 
won't listen to that either.

People will come to D from C++ and C# and ask "where are constructors in 
structs?" and we'll say "you have to use static opCall."  And they'll ask 
"why?"  And all we'll be able to do is shake our heads, sigh, and say "I 
don't know."

For the last time, even though you don't care: we have been using static 
opCall as a WORKAROUND.  As in *we never intended for that to be the 
canonical method of constructing a struct*.  I don't think anyone would 
complain if they were given a consistent, logical method of initializing any 
aggregate type. 





More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list