How does D improve design practices over C++?

[Michel Fortin]

On 2008-11-09 09:04:00 -0500, Christopher Wright <dhasenan at gmail.com> said:

> Michel Fortin wrote:
>> On 2008-11-07 02:42:20 -0500, Walter Bright <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> said:
>> 
>>> The difference between D delegates and boost::bind for member functions 
>>> is that D delegates bind to the specific virtual function when the 
>>> delegate is created, while boost::bind binds when the delegate is 
>>> called. The former is, of course, more efficient when the delegate gets 
>>> called more than once.
>> 
>> But the later makes it possible to call the same member function on 
>> various object instances (which may resolve to different code for 
>> virtual functions). I find that capability lacking in D.
> 
> You can do it in D, but only with templates. And it's ugly.
> 
> I must admit, I've never encountered a situation in which I wanted a 
> pointer to a member function. What situations did you encounter this 
> in? Why were, say, interfaces insufficient?

In the D/Objective-C bridge when I recieve a call from the Objective-C 
side and I need to dispatch it to the corresponding method of the given 
D object.


-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/