Immutable struct fields
Dmitry Olshansky
dmitry.olsh at gmail.com
Mon Nov 1 14:52:54 PDT 2010
On 02.11.2010 0:24, bearophile wrote:
> To answer the recent D.learn thread "How would I optimize this parser?", I have tried to find a more efficient way to build the parse tree, so I have used tagged structs, something like this:
>
>
> enum NodeType { node, text, tag }
>
> struct Node {
> /*immutable*/ NodeType type = NodeType.node;
> Node* parent;
> }
>
> struct TextNode {
> /*immutable*/ NodeType type = NodeType.text;
> Node* parent;
> string content;
>
> public nothrow this(string content) {
> this.content = content;
> }
> }
>
> struct TagNode {
> /*immutable*/ NodeType type = NodeType.tag;
> Node* parent;
> string name;
> Node*[] children;
>
> public nothrow this(string name) {
> this.name = name;
> }
>
> public nothrow void addChild(Node* newChild) {
> children ~= newChild;
> newChild.parent = cast(Node*)&this;
> }
> }
>
>
> Each struct instance contains a "type" tag that at runtime tells what kind of node it is. This tag never changes in the life of a node, so it's better for it to be immutable, to use the type system to avoid changing it by mistake.
>
> But unfortunately it doesn't work, this is a reduced example:
>
>
> struct Foo {
> immutable int x = 1;
> }
> struct Bar {
> immutable int x = 2;
> }
> static assert(Foo.sizeof == 4);
> void main() {
> Foo f;
> assert(f.x == 1);
> assert((cast(Bar)f).x == 1);
> }
>
>
> It seems that immutable fields act like static const fields or enum fields, they have no storage. This seems a little weird to me. Do you know a way to put immutable storage in a struct instance?
>
> Using this doesn't work:
>
> this(int) { type = NodeType.tag; }
>
> And a static this() doesn't seem to work. So in the program I have just used a mutable type field, but it looks silly...
>
> Bye,
> bearophile
Wierd indeed, best workaround I can come up with:
struct Foo {
immutable int x;
private this(int val){ x = val; }
public static Foo opCall(){
return Foo(1);
}
}
struct Bar {
immutable int x;
private this(int val){ x = val; }
public static Bar opCall(){
return Bar(2);
}
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 4);
void main() {
Foo f = Foo();
assert(f.x == 1);
assert((cast(Bar*)&f).x == 1);
}
works, and the fact that static opCall is deprecated(?) makes me wish
it's a compiler bug.
And you still could shoot yourself in the leg, but only explicitly (that
is "Foo f = Foo(42)" ) and only in the same module.
--
Dmitry Olshansky
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn
mailing list