I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
new X(args)
to create a class object, and
X(args)
to create a struct object. I wrote this:
The syntactic difference between the expression creating a @struct@
object---Test(@\meta{args}@)@---and the expression creating a @class@
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 05:38:13PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
> you guys think?
Didn't we go over this a few weeks ago? I think my preference would be
a bunch of templates in phobos that take new's job, and can also do
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:38:13 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
new X(args)
to create a class object, and
X(args)
to create a struct object. I wrote this:
The syntactic difference between the expression creating a @struct@
obj
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:38:13 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
new X(args)
to create a class object, and
X(args)
to create a struct object. I wrote this:
The syntactic difference between the expression cr
On 20/10/2009 00:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
new X(args)
to create a class object, and
X(args)
to create a struct object. I wrote this:
The syntactic difference between the expression creating a @struct@
object---Test(@\meta{args
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
> I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
> new X(args)
> to create a class object, and
> X(args)
> to create a struct object. I wrote this:
>
> The syntactic difference between the expression creating
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
> you guys think?
*applause*
'X(x)' and 'new X(x)' have distinct meanings in C++. In Java/C#/D, the
'new' is just line noise.
--
Rainer Deyke - rain...@eldwood.com
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Rainer Deyke wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
>> you guys think?
>
> *applause*
>
> 'X(x)' and 'new X(x)' have distinct meanings in C++. In Java/C#/D, the
> 'new' is just line noise.
Well
Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Rainer Deyke wrote:
>> 'X(x)' and 'new X(x)' have distinct meanings in C++. In Java/C#/D, the
>> 'new' is just line noise.
>
> Well, I think "new Foo" is how you create a struct on the heap in D.
> So it's not exactly line noise.
I should ha
Bill Baxter Wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Rainer Deyke wrote:
> > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
> >> you guys think?
> >
> > *applause*
> >
> > 'X(x)' and 'new X(x)' have distinct meanings in C++. In Java/C#/D, t
Jason House, el 19 de octubre a las 22:20 me escribiste:
> Bill Baxter Wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Rainer Deyke wrote:
> > > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > >> I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
> > >> you guys think?
> > >
> > > *applause*
> >
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:45:01 -0400, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
new X(args)
to create a class object, and
X(args)
to create a struct object. I wrote this:
The syntactic
Robert Jacques wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:45:01 -0400, dsimcha wrote:
>
>> == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
>> article
>>> I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
>>> new X(args)
>>> to create a class object, and
>>> X(args)
>>> to create a struct ob
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Jason House, el 19 de octubre a las 22:20 me escribiste:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Rainer Deyke wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
you guys think?
*applause*
'X(x)' and
Brad Roberts wrote:
Why do we still have static opcall? What role does it play that ctors don't?
Return "new C" for classes for consistency with structs :o).
class C {
static opCall(T...)(T args) {
return new C(args);
}
...
}
Andrei
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > Jason House, el 19 de octubre a las 22:20 me escribiste:
> >> Bill Baxter Wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Rainer Deyke wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > I he
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:53:23 -0400, Brad Roberts
wrote:
Robert Jacques wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:45:01 -0400, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
new X(args)
to create a class object
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Jason House, el 19 de octubre a las 22:20 me escribiste:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Rainer Deyke wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I hereby suggest
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
new X(args)
to create a class object, and
X(args)
to create a struct object. I wrote this:
The syntactic difference between the expression creating a @struct@
object---Test(@\meta{args}@)@---and the ex
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
>
> new X(args)
>
> to create a class object, and
>
> X(args)
>
> to create a struct object. I wrote this:
>
>
> The syntactic difference between the expression creating a @struct@
> object---Test(@\me
On 20-10-2009 6:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
you guys think?
I don't agree with this one.
There's extra cost involved, and the added keyword makes that clear.
Also, somebody mentioned using 'new' to allocate structs on th
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:12:39 +0800, Lionello Lunesu
wrote:
>On 20-10-2009 6:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
>> you guys think?
>
>I don't agree with this one.
>
>There's extra cost involved, and the added keyword makes that c
Chris Nicholson-Sauls Wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
> >
> > new X(args)
> >
> > to create a class object, and
> >
> > X(args)
> >
> > to create a struct object. I wrote this:
> >
> >
> > The syntactic difference between t
Lionello Lunesu wrote:
On 20-10-2009 6:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
you guys think?
I don't agree with this one.
There's extra cost involved, and the added keyword makes that clear.
That's actually one problem: a struc
Max Samukha wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:12:39 +0800, Lionello Lunesu
wrote:
On 20-10-2009 6:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
you guys think?
I don't agree with this one.
There's extra cost involved, and the added keyword
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 19 de octubre a las 22:16 me escribiste:
> dsimcha wrote:
> >== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
> >>Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >>>Jason House, el 19 de octubre a las 22:20 me escribiste:
> Bill Baxter Wrote:
>
> >On Mon,
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 19 de octubre a las 22:16 me escribiste:
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Jason House, el 19 de octubre a las 22:20 me escribiste:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
On Mon,
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 20 de octubre a las 08:42 me escribiste:
> >Why not Scoped!T ? I think the purpose for this that the lifetime of the
> >object is bounded to the scope, right? I think is hard to figure that out
> >from InSitu!T than Scoped!T.
> >
> >
>
> It's not a useless discussions, name
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>> Also, somebody mentioned using 'new' to allocate structs on the heap;
>> I've never actually done that, but it sounds like using 'new' would be
>> the perfect way to do just that.
>
> Yah, I guess I'll drop it.
Consistency with structs demand
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu, el 19 de octubre a las 22:16 me escribiste:
>>> No problem. You will be able to use InSitu!T. It is much better to
>>> confine unsafe features to libraries instead of putting them in the
>>> language.
>>>
>>> {
>>> au
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Max Samukha wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:12:39 +0800, Lionello Lunesu
wrote:
On 20-10-2009 6:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
you guys think?
I don't agree with this one.
There's extra cost invo
31 matches
Mail list logo
