On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Denis Koroskin Wrote: > >> You know, I'm not usually a guy who proposes radical changes to the >> language. I like the way D is, but there are a few proposals that keep >> popping up once in a while without a good rationale, and this simple idea >> stroke my head solves many of the issues that were found in previous >> proposals, so I decided to share it with you. >> >> It's as simple as that: require '*' to denote reference type. What does it >> give? >> >> 1) Consistency between classes and structs: >> >> Struct* s = new Struct(); >> Class* c = new Class(); >> >> It allows easier transition between classes and structs (please note that >> I don't propose any changes to class semantics): >> Foo* f = new Foo(); // works for both classes and structs >> >> 2) .sizeof consistency, get rid of __traits(classInstanceSize, Foo) >> (deprecate in favor of Foo.sizeof): >> >> Foo* f = cast(Foo*)malloc(Foo.sizeof); // works for both classes and >> structs (and enums, unions, etc) >> f.__ctor(args); >> >> 3) No more issues with tail-const, tail-shared, tail-immutable; deprecate >> Rebindable (this one was recently discussed): >> >> shared(Foo)* foo; // local pointer to shared type, works for both classes >> and structs >> >> Please note that we get these bonuses by only enforcing '*' to denote >> refence type, not a huge change to compiler IMO. It *will* break existing >> code, but the fix is rather trivial. >> >> To be continued. > > I was recently thinking about it as well, but didn't dare to shout things > like this. Looks much better to me in terms of consistency. The generic code > would benefit from that certainly. I am all for it. > > D2 has changed a lot anyway. And it requires conversion as well. This is a > good time to make this kind of a radical change.
I'd say the chance of anything like this happening for D2 is approximately zero to about six decimal places. But it's interesting to think about. --bb
