Random thought: Alternative stuct

[rikki cattermole]

On 04/09/2018 11:47 PM, Kagamin wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 06:32:02 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>>> If D didn't have built-in OOP features already, it'd be an 
>>> interesting question, but given that it does, I think getting rid of 
>>> them is a clear net-negative.
>>
>> You also loose loads of stuff like extern(C++) classes interop and 
>> COM. Definitely a net negative. Even with a concept like signatures, 
>> you just can't replace the class/interface system.
> 
> Even in betterC? Last I checked classes pulled TypeInfos and all the 
> stuff. What's the problem to use COM without classes? I do it.

Being able to define and use COM as it was intended (via classes) is a 
feature of D.

Looks like it could be pretty straight forward to get it working in 
-betterC, since what it isn't complaining about is TypeInfo. Keep in 
mind, IUnknown is its own root, just like Object and has a completely 
different ABI for vtable's and such.

test.obj(test)
  Error 42: Symbol Undefined __D6object6Object8opEqualsMFCQtZb
test.obj(test)
  Error 42: Symbol Undefined __D6object6Object5opCmpMFCQqZi
test.obj(test)
  Error 42: Symbol Undefined __D6object6Object6toHashMFNbNeZk
test.obj(test)
  Error 42: Symbol Undefined __D6object6Object8toStringMFZAya
test.obj(test)
  Error 42: Symbol Undefined __D4test3Foo7__ClassZ