Weed пишет: > Bill Baxter пишет: >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Christopher Wright <dhase...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. When would you use this? >>> - In place of the current scope keyword. >>> - For more efficiency with object composition (though scope could be used >>> for this, potentially). >>> - Implementing value semantics with runtime polymorphism. >>> >>> The only interesting thing there is value semantics with polymorphism. If >>> you really care, you can implement polymorphism with structs. >>> >> My problem is more that I just can't understand the guy so I don't >> know if I agree with him or not. >> >> I think the choice between just >> >> value semantics / POD / no polymorphism / heap or stack and >> reference semantics / non-POD / polymorphism / heap only > > No, for classes I suggest to choose between: > reference semantics / non-POD / polymorphism / heap only (current state) > and > value or reference semantics / non-POD / polymorphism / heap or stack > > As a matter of fact how it was in C++, but with check slicing or simply > prohibition of assignment to other types by value.
==== > Syntax will demand > attention before change - it is necessary to make so that there was no > mixing of names of references and classes on value. ==== ^^^^^^^^ Here the nonsense is written, it is not necessary to be afraid of mixing. I should sleep more:)
