Auto constructor [Was: Archetype language]
Don
nospam at nospam.com
Mon Mar 21 01:17:47 PDT 2011
Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 21.03.2011 00:55, schrieb bearophile:
>> Among the things I've listed about Archetype there's one interesting
>> thing. Class instances aren't PODs, but sometimes I prefer reference
>> semantics and to populate fields in a plain way, expecially for simple
>> classes.
>>
>> Time ago I and other people have suggested a syntax like (this also to
>> avoid a class of bugs
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3878 ):
>>
>>
>> class Foo {
>> string x;
>> int y = 1;
>> this(this.x, this.y) {}
>> }
>> void main() {
>> Foo f3 = new Foo("hello", 10);
>> }
>>
>
> Yeah, I still like that idea ;)
>
>>
>> A simpler solution are classes with automatic constructors:
>>
>> class Foo {
>> string x;
>> int y = 1;
>> }
>> void main() {
>> Foo f1 = new Foo(); // Good
>> Foo f2 = new Foo("hello"); // Good
>> Foo f3 = new Foo("hello", 10); // Good
>> }
>>
>>
>> What kind of problems are caused by this? :-)
>>
>
> You'd have to know the order in that the members are defined in the
> class (and you may not change the order).
> Just imagine
> class Foo {
> int bla;
> int baz;
> }
>
> new Foo(42, 3); // what is bla, what is baz?
>
> and then you decide "uh I'd prefer to have my class members ordered
> alphabetically" and *bamm* all you code silently breaks.
>
> having a this(this.bla, this.baz) {} would clearly document which
> argument in the constructor belongs to which class member and the class
> members ordering wouldn't matter.
>
> Cheers,
> - Daniel
I agree. But unfortunately, the idea is a relatively complicated feature
with a lot of special cases. For example, this(this.bla, this.bla){}
and what if the class contains a union and you set multiple members of it?
The whole thing is actually quite messy. It's not _terrible_, but it's
far from trivial, and it's more complicated than some far more powerful
and useful language features.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list