Serialization for D. Comments, please!

[grauzone]

BCS wrote:
>>> 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.

IMO, most tree-like structures are still full graphs in memory, because 
they often contain "parent" pointers, or point back to a parent 
indirectly (e.g. even if a generic tree data structure is implemented 
without parent pointers, the data element itself might contain such 
pointers).

> OTOH pointers to struct are not value types...

Pointers are a whole different thing. A pointer can still point to a 
"value" type, because that struct might be embedded within an object (a 
class member that's a struct).

>>> 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.

Huh? You can simple cast the interface to an object. And then cast the 
object to the serializeable type. You need to be able to do that anyway, 
because object references can be of the type "Object", and there's no 
way you'd add your serialize mixin to Object.

Also, is you writing "sterilizer" a typo or not?