Yigal Chripun пишет:
If I understand you correctly - I think you confuse here two separate
and orthogonal issues.
1) struct vs. class
2) memory allocation
What D tries to do is to provide types with value semantics via structs
and types with reference semantics _and_polymorphism_ via classes.
IMO C++ is a prime example how to not design a language and the slicing
problem is a good example of that. value types should not have
polymorphism whatsoever as is done in D.
memory allocation is orthogonal to this:
class C {...}
Struct S {...}
auto c1 = new C; // classes default to heap alloc
scope c2 = new C; // c2 is on stack
S s1; // structs default to stack
auto s2 = new S; // s2 is S* (heap alloc)
I think Andrei said he wants to make changes to "scope", that is IIRC.
What will change?
struct inheritance, if it gets implemented in D, should express IMO
semantics similar to concepts as in C++0x, not provide polymorphism for
value types which is clearly a mistake. (also this will remove the need
for typedefs, isn't it?)
I agree.
In my case I chose to structure rather than a class because it can be
initialized at compile time.
But now I thing must be allowed to deploy class in the default data
segment. And add the possibility of creating a object of class at
compile time.
Nothing prevents this change?
