Sean Kelly Wrote:
> John Simon wrote:
> >
> > Oh man I've tried, believe me.
> > I couldn't figure out how to call the destructors in-place. Also, structs
> > can't have parameter-less constructors
>
> Have you tried just calling delete on the
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 08:15:59 +0300, John Simon wrote:
>
> > I'd like to propose a new use for the 'scope' keyword within an
> > aggregate body.
> >
> > Members of class type declared with the scope keyword are alloc
Yigal Chripun Wrote:
> On 09/03/2009 00:12, John Simon wrote:
> > Sean Kelly Wrote:
> >
> >> John Simon wrote:
> >>> Sean Kelly Wrote:
> >>>> Oh, I should mention that I'm not sure how the compiler would
> >>>> handle this sc
Sean Kelly Wrote:
> John Simon wrote:
> > Sean Kelly Wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh, I should mention that I'm not sure how the compiler would handle
> >> this scenario:
> >>
> >> class A { byte[16]; }
> >> class B { byte[32]; }
>
Sean Kelly Wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> > John Simon wrote:
> >> I'd like to propose a new use for the 'scope' keyword within an
> >> aggregate body.
> >>
> >> Members of class type declared with the scope keyword are allocated
> &g
Christopher Wright Wrote:
> John Simon wrote:
> > You can always upcast and downcast safely, since it isn't actually a
> > 'value' type, only the address is passed around. The type of the class
> > remains intact.
>
> Right, but a scope variable has i
Christopher Wright Wrote:
> dsimcha wrote:
> > But the whole point of classes is that they're supposed to be polymorphic.
> > If you
> > don't need polymorphism, that's what structs are for. You can store them
> > either
> > inline (default) or in separate heap space (using pointers). If you
I'd like to propose a new use for the 'scope' keyword within an aggregate body.
Members of class type declared with the scope keyword are allocated not as
references or pointers, but initialized directly inside the container. Instead
of a default initializer of 'null', it will initialize with t
