Serialization for D. Comments, please!
none at anon.com
Sun Jun 14 14:04:25 PDT 2009
> BCS wrote:
>>> introduce annotations into the language.
>> NO, not an option.
> What, why? Sure, this is not a realistic option.
D1 is fixed, and D2 will be in the next few months. I'm not going to even
think of targeting D3 at this point. I'm writing this to be used, not as
a theoretical construct.
>> Well, I can switch the default but, in my experience, most of the
>> time repetition doesn't matter. I also dissagree on the "relatively
> Oh really?
I haven't used a graph data structure in some time. Most of them have been
trees. And the cases I can think of, the repeated reference bit has been
central the the structure so the chances of getting it wrong (or of missing
it under test) are about nil.
>> optimization" bit, it adds some not exactly trivial overhead in about
>> 3 or 4 different places.
> Maybe it costs a hash table lookup, but apart from that, you're saving
> space and time for marshaling additional instances. Of course, this is
> different with structs. But structs are value types.
which side are you arguing there?
OTOH pointers to struct are not value types...
>> interfaces are not supported either.
> But supporting interfaces would be very simple.
It wouldn't be hard in the current form (you would add a mixin to the interface
as well) but the non-mixin, outside in approach would have all sorts of interesting
issues like how to get the correct sterilizer function.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce