Why can't we derive struct's?
alexanderheistermann at gmail.com
Tue Dec 25 04:48:22 UTC 2018
On Monday, 24 December 2018 at 23:54:19 UTC, Rubn wrote:
> When talking implicit conversion (at least in the same sense as
> C++) you create a new object when doing an implicit conversion.
> How do you envision the implicit conversion would work?
Similar to how C# does it.
> Why do you need implicit conversion for this ?
I meant that you can't program an event that runs every time an
implicit conversion occurs.(Unless you hacked the compiler that
does that for you...)
> You could just use explicit conversion for this
I am specifically talking about implicit conversions via
inheritance and why it not an idea tool, as (Which I had said
before) you have no control on how it does implicit conversions.
I am not talking about explicit conversions here.
>> If you want to support multiple implicit conversion with the
>> current features, then you need multiple alias this, which is
>> not a good solution as
>> A.) It is multiple inheritance. Which we both agree it is a
>> terrible idea.
>> B.) Multi alias this still hasn't been implemented already.
>> *Throws table*
> Idk, all this seems shakey. I avoid implicit conversion as much
> as possible in C++, the times I do use it usually is because of
> some other limitation in C++ that can be solved a different way
> in D.
... What limitations in C++ are you talking about?
More information about the Digitalmars-d