http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463
--- Comment #103 from Andrei Alexandrescu <and...@metalanguage.com> 2011-04-14 15:08:15 PDT --- (In reply to comment #102) > (In reply to comment #100) > > (In reply to comment #99) > > > (In reply to comment #98) > > > > The work on improving introspection should be done anyway. > > > > > > The trouble with using runtime introspection for this is it'll be slow, > > > and the > > > scanning of data needs to be really fast. > > I understand. That still means (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the > > right place for specialized code should be at TypeInfo level. Also, I > > wonder if > > there's a need for a DSL. Wouldn't automatically-generated Typeinfo methods > > suffice? > > I don't really understand your comment. Are you saying the TypeInfo should do > introspection at runtime to generate specialized data tables for the gc > (obviously caching it so it is done only once per type)? This is certainly a > possible approach. I was thinking that the compiler could generate D code that does the scanning instead of us defining a DSL for that. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
