typeof()

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 03:20:09 -0400, Gor Gyolchanyan  
<gor.f.gyolchanyan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, the best idea would be to enable full reflection (much more
> complete, then what we have now) by default and allow to remove it on
> demand.
> Just like the methods being virtual by default, but with ability to
> make them final.

I disagree.

1. Virtual methods are more common than final ones.  But in D, RTTI is  
much less prevalent than CTTI.
2. RTTI can be generated from CTTI, so if you want to *force* extended  
RTTI on objects that don't declare their RTTI "filled out", it should be  
possible.

>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:
>
>> I got the impression that you suggested that the current RTTI should be
>> removed and only be available if you're using the @rtti attribute.

The current RTTI is pretty useless.  The only true RTTI functions in  
existence are the factory method (which is useless for classes without a  
default ctor) and dynamic cast.  Everything else in TypeInfo is easily had  
with CTTI.

I think we need dynamic casting for sure, and the nature of how classes  
are built requires it anyways.  factory I'm not so sure we need to be  
supported for every class.  I'd rather get full RTTI info for hierarchies  
that I'm going to use RTTI on (usually RTTI is used on a specific subset  
of the types).  Yes, it does not allow for certain types of tools or  
scripting engines, but so what?  If you want you can mark Object with  
@rtti and get every class into RTTI.

-Steve