> > If the new "operator" for the class is redesigned to have multiply > > allocation types > > (allocate on heap, allocate on stack, etc.?), there is no main drawback of > > using > classes instead of structs for small objects( like vec2, vec3) as well. > > Yes there is. How about the cost of storing vtbl and monitor? Actually, just
I keep forgetting those (4-8) extra bytes per instance :) And what about the final classes (with no ancestors)? Is there a vtbl for them since they cannot be derived and they have no virtual parent to inherit members from ? Or the Object with opHash and the other operators are virtual by nature in all classes ? (sorry, I don't know D that much) Well, actually it seems as struct is a much better and clear solution. In that case I vote for this().
