Proposal for __traits
Charles D Hixson
charleshixsn at earthlink.net
Thu Aug 23 18:16:47 PDT 2007
Robert Fraser wrote:
> Leonard Dahlmann Wrote:
>
>> That's basically a nice idea. The problem with that though is, that
>> the properties would need to be available at both compile time
>> and runtime. IMO, RTTI is bloated enough like it is now.
>
> How different our viewpoints are... I've been campaigning for runtime reflection for a while now, and you're against it :-).
I'd like that too, but it seems to be the minority viewpoint.
If it could reasonably be implemented with a compiler switch
I doubt that many would be against it, but CAN it? (I
couldn't guess.)
FWIW, this is one reason that I'm so glad to see the Pyd
project. It's a totally different language, but it should
allow me to merge run-time code with fast executing code.
(Or, of course, I could mingle Python with C as an
alternative... but I dislike C. Despite that I'm currently
slogging through learning C+Gtk. I can call C from D. I
could probably call Gtk from D...but I'm not sure about
managing the callbacks. Still, C can sit in the middle and
talk to D & Gtk & Python. If only it didn't involve so much
dangerous use of pointers.)
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list