#dbugfix 17592

[H. S. Teoh]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 03:55:52PM -0600, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> Walter and Andrei have been discussing putting together a DIP with a
> "ProtoObject" which will be the new root class below Object where
> ProtoObject itself has only the bare minimum required to work as a
> class (not monitor object, no toString, no opEquals, etc.). Classes
> could then derive from ProtoObject directly instead of from Object,
> and then they could define any of the functions that are currently on
> Object with whatever attributes they wanted (or not define them at
> all).

Woo!  Now *this* is good news indeed!  A lot of my current code that
uses classes would actually benefit from inheriting directly from
ProtoObject as opposed to Object, since I don't need the monitor object,
and don't really need a unified toString/opEquals/etc., either, since if
they are needed for a particular class hierarchy I'd just declare them
(with the right attributes!) in the base class.  So they can be pure,
@nogc, whatever, without worrying about conflicts with the current
definition of Object.


> The DIP has not yet been written, and the details still need to be
> ironed out, but that's the gist of the direction that's currently
> being considered.
[...]

*This* is going to be a DIP I look forward to!


T

-- 
What do you get if you drop a piano down a mineshaft? A flat minor.