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';