division of objects into classes and structures is bad

[Weed]

Christopher Wright пишет:
> Weed wrote:
>> Who agrees with me? There are still ideas as it is possible to solve
>> this problem and not to destroy language?
> 
> When you reply to your reply to your reply to your post and nobody else
> replies to any of your posts, you might start thinking that nobody
> agrees with you, or cares enough to respond.

I consoled myself that the letter has got lost in the big thread

> As to your suggestion that there be compile-time checks for object
> slicing... well, you'd end up with almost everything with any
> polymorphism being done by reference for safety. In the remaining
> situations, scope will usually suffice.
> 
> I don't think anyone sees sufficient reason to give Walter as much work
> as you suggest.

D2.0 not released, it changes supplemented. I seriously consider at it
there is a chance to become the most good language, a "silver bullet".
:) This discussion - my small contribution.

> When would you use this?
>  - In place of the current scope keyword.

I consider that "scope" is attempt to fix bad design.
Have come to that that on a stack all the same it is necessary to place
classes and have added a word, but it does not solve all problems.

>  - For more efficiency with object composition (though scope could be
> used for this, potentially).
>  - Implementing value semantics with runtime polymorphism.
> 

And, probably, in the future it will help to add other possibilities.
For example compile-time initialization of classes about which I here
spoke too (not in this thread)


> The only interesting thing there is value semantics with polymorphism.
> If you really care, you can implement polymorphism with structs.

Excellent templates, unit tests, closures, delegates, threads... And
after all it is offered to the programmer most implement OOP by hands?