#dbugfix 17592

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, March 23, 2018 22:33:53 jmh530 via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 23 March 2018 at 21:55:52 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Walter and Andrei have been discussing putting together a DIP
> > with a "ProtoObject" which will be the new root class below
> > Object where ProtoObject itself has only the bare minimum
> > required to work as a class (not monitor object, no toString,
> > no opEquals, etc.). Classes could then derive from ProtoObject
> > directly instead of from Object, and then they could define any
> > of the functions that are currently on Object with whatever
> > attributes they wanted (or not define them at all). The DIP has
> > not yet been written, and the details still need to be ironed
> > out, but that's the gist of the direction that's currently
> > being considered.
> >
> > - Jonathan M Davis
>
> Object would derive from ProtoObject, right?

That would be the idea. That way, if all goes well, no code would break, and
hopefully, over time, Object would be treated as legacy and phased out of
use (though Andrei has stated that it's not his plan that Object actually be
deprecated). Newer code would derive from ProtoObject rather than Object,
and we'd have the flexibility with the functions that come from Object that
we've wanted for years, because then they can be defined as appropriate by
sub-classes of ProtoObject.

- Jonathan M Davis