On 2009-02-08 05:41:11 -0500, Walter Bright said:
As one wag put it, the solution to all problems is another level of
indirection. This can work here, too. Have your only field in a class
be a reference to an opaque type, and a member function that is a
dispatcher based on a string argument o
Michel Fortin wrote:
There are many options. Either it's done by the linker and the dynamic
library loader, or it's done by the library initialization code, or
lazily on the first use of a class. Or we don't use virtual function
tables at all...
As one wag put it, the solution to all problems
On 2009-02-05 08:51:39 -0500, grauzone said:
Summary of the upcoming discussion: "use interfaces!"
You should preemptively list reasons, why this is not enough.
Well, you can't create a subclass and override functions if only the
interface is exposed. In fact, exposing only interface offers
On 2009-02-05 12:53:07 -0500, BCS said:
What I would like to see is the vtbl offsets being patched up by the
linker. That way the vtbl can be reordered with impunity and you only
need to re link. You still can't get binary compatibility for DLL/SO's
(unless loading them does patching as well?
Reply to Michel,
http://michelf.com/weblog/2009/non-fragile-abi-in-d/
What I would like to see is the vtbl offsets being patched up by the linker.
That way the vtbl can be reordered with impunity and you only need to re
link. You still can't get binary compatibility for DLL/SO'
Michel Fortin wrote:
http://michelf.com/weblog/2009/non-fragile-abi-in-d/
Summary of the upcoming discussion: "use interfaces!"
You should preemptively list reasons, why this is not enough.
http://michelf.com/weblog/2009/non-fragile-abi-in-d/
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
