On 2011-10-21 13:07, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 03:20:09 -0400, Gor Gyolchanyan
<gor.f.gyolchan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, the best idea would be to enable full reflection (much more
complete, then what we have now) by default and allow to remove it on
demand.
Just like the methods being virtual by default, but with ability to
make them final.
I disagree.
1. Virtual methods are more common than final ones. But in D, RTTI is
much less prevalent than CTTI.
2. RTTI can be generated from CTTI, so if you want to *force* extended
RTTI on objects that don't declare their RTTI "filled out", it should be
possible.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote:
I got the impression that you suggested that the current RTTI should be
removed and only be available if you're using the @rtti attribute.
The current RTTI is pretty useless. The only true RTTI functions in
existence are the factory method (which is useless for classes without a
default ctor) and dynamic cast. Everything else in TypeInfo is easily
had with CTTI.
It's useful, I use it in my serialization library Orange. I have my own
implementation that doesn't care about constructors. It's used for
deserialization, instead of the constructor a special method can be used.
I think we need dynamic casting for sure, and the nature of how classes
are built requires it anyways. factory I'm not so sure we need to be
supported for every class. I'd rather get full RTTI info for hierarchies
that I'm going to use RTTI on (usually RTTI is used on a specific subset
of the types). Yes, it does not allow for certain types of tools or
scripting engines, but so what? If you want you can mark Object with
@rtti and get every class into RTTI.
-Steve
The problem is when you use third party types and they haven't used the
@rtti attribute.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
