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