On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 08:38:55 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 4/16/23 00:46, Skippy wrote:
> I wish D had value type classes as well.
That cannot work due to the slicing problem.
C++ cannot have value type classes either for the same reason.
The difference there is that the enforcement is by guidelines
(e.g. "never pass class objects by value to functions", not by
language).
If you want class objects on the stack, you have two options:
- The scope keyword
- The scoped template from Phobos
Ali
IMO, there is no need to 'force' reference semantics on the
example provided (i.e the slicing problem does not apply here).
I was under the impression scope (the keyword) was being
deprecated?
I could have used a struct of course, but my mental model of a
struct is a C-like struct, not a C++ like struct. I like that
mental model - which is the reason why I like C++'s value type
classes.
Then there is the issue of the D compiler assigning a 'default
value' to an object variable that hasn't yet been assigned a
value: Object o;
But.. that's a separate discussion.
