This needs a different approach

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Saaa" wrote
>> You should seriously consider putting these things into classes instead 
>> of modules, and looking up the right interface based on the data type 
>> from a function.  For example:
>>
>> interface Edible
>> {
>>   void eat();
>> }
>>
>> class Pear : Edible
>> {
>>   void eat() {...}
>> }
>>
>> static Edible[] fruits;
>>
>> static this()
>> {
>>    fruits = [APPLE:new Apple(), PEAR:new Pear()...].dup;
>> }
>>
>> Edible get(uint type)
>> {
>>    if(type > fruits.length)
>>       return null;
>>    return fruits[type];
>> }
>>
>> Robert is right, this is precisely the thing that OO programming was 
>> created for :)
>>
>> -Steve
>
> I should have written this before, but data is actually an array.
>
> enum { APPLE, PEAR .. PLUM}
>
> for(i=0;i<1000;i++)
> {
> switch (data[i].type)
> {
>   case APPLE:
>     groupModule.appleModule.eat();
>     break;
>   case PEAR:
>     groupModule.pearModule.eat();
>     break;
> ..
> ..
>  case PLUM:
>    groupModule.plumModule.eat();
>    break;
>  default:
>    break;
> }
> }

So with the get method I outlined above, the switch code becomes:

get(data[i].type).eat();

-Steve