All right, all right! Interim decision regarding qualified Object methods

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-07-12 09:59, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> For the most part, I think that operating on Objects like that is horrible,
> and we certainly don't encourage it, but it's been possible for ages, so I'm
> willing to bet that there's plenty of code which does it. For instance, what's
> Tango do? As I understand it, they're fairly Java-esque in their general
> approach to things, so it wouldn't entirely surprise me if their containers
> held Object rather than being templated (though the need to hold primitive
> types may have made it so that they didn't go that route).

All containers in Tango are templated classes, interfaces or structs. 
Just because Tango have more of a class hierarchy and nested packages 
than Phobos doesn't mean it doesn't use templates.

> 2. Will this work with toString? How much stuff relies on being able to get a
> string from Object? We've been switching everything in Phobos over to use
> variadic templates, which should make it easy enough to get around that
> problem (presumably, classes are then in the same boat as structs which don't
> define toString), but we may have older functions which will run into problems
> with this, and some stuff in other libraries could be completely screwed by
> this. Again, what does Tango do? Does it use variadic templates for its print
> function, or does it use D style variadics? At first glance, it seems to me
> that getting rid of toString on Object would screw over its use with D style
> variadics. That may or not be true, but if it is, we're closing doors on stuff
> which currently works.

Tango uses D style variadics for printing.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg