Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I myself don't really use the interface aspect of the classes, it is mostly a
carryover from the Java/Tango inspirations. But I can see one good reason to
keep them -- binary interoperability. For example, it might be the case some
day when D has good support with dynamic libraries that a library exposes some
piece of itself as a Map or List interface.
Hi, Steven.
You made a good point on interoperability.
Strict, precise, readable, interfaces, that's what I would like in the
really good standard library for D.
But, is D mature enough to this kind of possibilities, considering, at
least, known bugs involving interfaces?
I don't even feel myself free to use interfaces in my code because of
undefined behavior it may cause.
Shared libraries...
Is this going to happen on Linux?
When?
--
Alex Makhotin,
the founder of BITPROX,
http://bitprox.com
