Slow performance compared to C++, ideas?
Regan Heath
regan at netmail.co.nz
Wed Jun 5 07:08:46 PDT 2013
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 13:53:58 +0100, Michal Minich
<michal.minich at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 3 June 2013 at 17:18:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> override is not comparable
>> because it improves code correctness and maintainability, for which
>> there is ample prior evidence. It's also a matter for which, unlike
>> virtual/final, there is no reasonable recourse.
>
> Virtual by default makes it simpler to call method on object that is not
> initialized yet (constructor not called yet). This situation is possible
> regardless if virtual is default or not (it can just happen more easily).
Yeah, it happened to me in C++ .. same with virtuals in the destructor.
Lesson learned first time tho :p
> I think this calling virtual function in constructor should generate a
> warning. (I wouldn't be surprised if there is enhancement request filed
> for this already)
With virtual by default, could D statically verify/deny these? What about
with static by default? Does it get easier or harder to detect/deny these
in either case?
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list