Copy constructors for lazy initialization
schveiguy at yahoo.com
Fri May 28 21:33:25 PDT 2010
On Fri, 28 May 2010 21:26:50 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> Walter has had a great idea last night: allow classes to define
I'm almost positive you meant "allow *structs* to define"
> this(ref S src);
> where S is the name of the struct being defined, as an alternative for
> The idea of the copy constructor is to lazy initialize the source and
> the target if the source has null state. That would take care of this
> problem and the similar problems for shared state.
> There is still a possibility to call a method against an object with
> null state. I think that's acceptable, particularly because lazy
> initialization saves some state allocation.
> What do you think?
It is a good effort to solve the problem. The problem I see with such
constructs is inherently the lazy construction. Because you must lazily
construct such a container, every method meant to be called on the struct
must first check and initialize the container if not done already. This
results in an undue burden on the struct author to make sure he covers
every method. The first method he forgets to lazily initialize the struct
results in an obscure bug.
I wonder, would it be possible to go even further? For example, something
// create state
which would be called if the struct still has not been initialized? lazy
this() should be prepared to accept an already initialized struct, which
should be no problem because most lazily initialized structs always differ
from the .init value.
The compiler could optimize this call out when it can statically determine
that a struct has already been initialized.
This of course, does not cover copy construction, but it would be called
before the copy constructor.
BTW, I'm glad you guys are looking at this problem.
More information about the Digitalmars-d