Agreed. The explicit and selective rtti would be great. Sometimes i
need to create classes instead of structs because the reference
semantics is more applicable, but i don't want to carry around type
information, that I'm not gonna use.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:07:12 -0400, Gor Gyolchanyan
> <gor.f.gyolchan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> D's runtime type info is very limited, so you may not be able to get what
>>> you are looking for.
>>
>> D's compile-time type info is very rich and it's easy to remember it
>> for run-time use.
>
> Yes, but you have to do some funky stuff to link it to the typeinfo.
> Compare this to other languages where the compiler generates a very rich
> set of runtime info (e.g. Java).
>
> I think actually, the runtime info generated by the compiler is seldom used
> (except for maybe dynamic casting), and just creates bloat.
>
> I envision in the future, the runtime info generated would be triggered by
> an annotation like @rtti("functions", "fields", "inheritance"). That would
> give us a good hook to selectively generate rtti when it makes sense.
>
> -Steve
>
