What would be the consequence of implementing interfaces as fat pointers ?
Daniel Murphy
yebbliesnospam at gmail.com
Sun Mar 30 20:26:17 PDT 2014
"Orvid King" wrote in message
news:mailman.124.1396235867.25518.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> Actually, there is one big thing that this would break; C++ interop. With
> the way interfaces currently work, you can define an interface with
> virtual methods, and you can call those methods on that interface, and, if
> you've properly overlayed it over a C++ class instance, you will be
> calling a virtual method defined on that C++ class. Fat interfaces would
> break this capability, and would actually break some of my existing code,
> due to the fact I use that exact capability. I do however mark my
> interfaces as extern(C++), so perhaps they would have to be an exception
> to the ABI if this change were made?
We wouldn't be changing the C++ ABI, just the D ABI. Only D interfaces
would be affected.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list