Serialization for D. Comments, please!
BCS
none at anon.com
Sun Jun 14 14:04:25 PDT 2009
Hello grauzone,
> 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
>> useless
>>
> 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
mailing list