On May 18, 2013 11:25 PM, "Igor Stepanov" <wazar.leoll...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> At the current time D have powerful mechanism of access to C++ classes.
> For access to methods of C++ classes (virtual and not) we can use
extern(C++) interface.
>
> //С++
>
> class CPPTest1
> {
> int a;
> int b;
> public:
> virtual int boom();
> int fun();
> static int gun();
> CPPTest1(int);
> virtual ~CPPTest1();
> int& operator[](size_t);
> };
>
> class CPPTest2: public CPPTest1
> {
> int boom();
> };
>
> //D
> extern(C++)interface CPPTest1
> {
> int boom();
> static int gun();
> final int fun();
> }
>
> extern(C++)interface CPPTest2: CPPTest1
> {
> //int boom();
> }
>
>
>
> As a rule, non-static fields are not public in C++ classes and is not
part of interface. Thus the most of C++ classes can be bound without any
glue c++ code.
> However D dont support C++ overloaded operators and constructors. Yes, we
cannot make mapping C++ operators to D operators and C++ constructors to D
constructors). Nonetheless С++ operators and constructors are the simple
C++ functions or methods with special mangling. Thus I've suggest next
mechanism:
> Allow special pragma(cppSymbol, string_arg), when string_arg is the name
of c++ thing.
> Example:
>
> extern(C++)interface CPPTest1
> {
> int boom();
> static int gun();
> final int fun();
> ///!!!!
> pragma(cppSymbol, "constructor") final void ctor(int); //linked with
CPPTest1(int);
> pragma(cppSymbol, "destructor") void dtor(); //linked with virtual
~CPPTest1();
> pragma(cppSymbol, "[]") ref int indexOf(size_t); //linked with int&
operator[](size_t);
> }
>
> This pragma must apply to the function (or method), use natural C++
mangle, but set operatror or constructor or destructor mangled name instead
of function name.
>
> Is it useful idea?
No.
Regards
--
Iain Buclaw
*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
