Christopher Wright пишет: > Weed wrote: >> Who agrees with me? There are still ideas as it is possible to solve >> this problem and not to destroy language? > > When you reply to your reply to your reply to your post and nobody else > replies to any of your posts, you might start thinking that nobody > agrees with you, or cares enough to respond.
I consoled myself that the letter has got lost in the big thread > As to your suggestion that there be compile-time checks for object > slicing... well, you'd end up with almost everything with any > polymorphism being done by reference for safety. In the remaining > situations, scope will usually suffice. > > I don't think anyone sees sufficient reason to give Walter as much work > as you suggest. D2.0 not released, it changes supplemented. I seriously consider at it there is a chance to become the most good language, a "silver bullet". :) This discussion - my small contribution. > When would you use this? > - In place of the current scope keyword. I consider that "scope" is attempt to fix bad design. Have come to that that on a stack all the same it is necessary to place classes and have added a word, but it does not solve all problems. > - For more efficiency with object composition (though scope could be > used for this, potentially). > - Implementing value semantics with runtime polymorphism. > And, probably, in the future it will help to add other possibilities. For example compile-time initialization of classes about which I here spoke too (not in this thread) > The only interesting thing there is value semantics with polymorphism. > If you really care, you can implement polymorphism with structs. Excellent templates, unit tests, closures, delegates, threads... And after all it is offered to the programmer most implement OOP by hands?