On 25/09/2009 23:49, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
In this article:
http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill18.htm
Herb Sutter makes a powerful argument that overridable functions
(customization points) should actually not be the same as the publically
available interface. This view rhymes with the Template Method pattern
as well.
This leads to the interesting setup in which an interface should ideally
define some signatures of to-be-defined functions, but disallow client
code from calling them. For the clients, the same interface should
expose some higher-level final functions.
Ignoring for the moment access protection semantics in D (which are
broken anyway), let's say this would work:
interface Cloneable(T) if (is(T == class))
{
private T doClone(); // must implement but can't call
T clone() // this is what everybody can call
{
auto result = doClone();
assert(typeof(result) == typeof(this));
assert(this.equals(result));
return result;
}
}
So clients must implement doClone, but nobody can ever call it except
Cloneable's module. This ensures that no cloning ever gets away with
returning the wrong object.
Pretty powerful, eh? Now, sometimes you do want to allow a derived class
to call the base class implementation. In that case, the interface
function must be protected:
interface ComparableForEquality(T)
{
protected bool doEquals(T);
final bool equals(T rhs)
{
auto result = doEquals(rhs);
assert(rhs.equals(cast(T) this) == result);
return result;
}
}
The difference is that now a derived class could call super.doEquals.
This feature would require changing some protection rules, I think for
the better. What do you think?
Andrei
to clarify your suggestion above I have a few questions:
are the functions with definitions always final?
interface A {
final func () {...}
}
interface B {
final func () {...}
}
class C : A, B {...}
auto obj = new C;
C.func(); // what happens here?
