denis.spir at gmail.com
Sun Oct 24 16:19:17 PDT 2010
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:54:15 -0400
bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote:
> > But for any reason, this logic is not pushed to the point of providing type hierarchy by subtyping. It would have been great for me, since much of the common functionality is generic. Without a type hierarchy, I need to duplicate it on each struct type, which is _bad_ (as any programmer knows ;-).
> Can you explain your use case better? I am curious. I have used a hierarchy of structs in D in a small raytracer, to encode 3D objects.
I cannot explain in detail, because it's still vague in my mind. It would be for a toy OO dynamic language. The root struct type would represent to root "element" (piece of data) type. Then, the whole D-struct hierarchy would mirror the source language's type hierarchy.
I want a type hierarchy so that I can directly implement generic core language features (that a record can store any kind of element) and types (eg collections). Also, every element of the language itself would be a record-element, including types, methods, scopes...
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
vit esse estrany ☣
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn