On 2009-11-15 00:09:43 -0500, "Steven Schveighoffer"
<schvei...@yahoo.com> said:
I agree -- it should be possible with the metaprogramming power of D to
allow for the user to choose his weapon -- power and speed vs. safe.
I think simplicity is a given.
For example, it could be a version statement that decides whether
ranges of a container do runtime checks for safety.
Interesting, although you'll probably want better granularity than a
version statement. If your containers are going to be used with SafeD
perhaps you'll want a safe and an unsafe variant of some accessor
functions (one with bound checks being called for safe code, the other
without).
I think shoehorning containers that are graph based into value types
might be a little strenuous. All the builtin D container types are
essentially reference types (arrays are not exactly reference types
but behave mostly like reference types), I don't see why we should
change that.
Making them classes allows for interfaces which helps allow runtime
decisions for things like copying data between containers that are of
different types. See dcollections and how easy it is to copy data from
one type to another.
I'm of the same opinion. That said, I'm wondering if the container
classes shouldn't also be made final (unlike dcollections). Being
classes would make them easy to pass as interfaces, but them being
final would help skip the virtual calls whenever you don't pass them as
interfaces.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
