• Sebastian Moleski (8/8) May 30 2003 Hi,
• Ilya Minkov (17/27) May 30 2003 Hello.
• Walter (5/7) May 30 2003 You have an excellent point. Put too much magic in, and people will lose
• Matthew Wilson (8/16) May 30 2003 C#/.NET supports both static & instance, and I think it's a good thing.

"Sebastian Moleski" <s.moleski tcu.edu> writes:

Hi,

One thing that has always made me wonder when I see delegates (pointers to
member functions): why not allow delegates be assigned static member
functions or regular non-member functions? The way it could work is that the
pointer to the object inside the delegate be set to null and, when the
delegate is invoked, a run-time check is added to use proper call
semantics.What do you all think?

sm

Ilya Minkov <midiclub 8ung.at> writes:

Hello.

I believe that this would be too implicit. Ocassional assignment should 
be prevented statically. How about assignment trough closure or some 
other syntactic twist?

I also don't believe in hiding "this" pointer. The distinction between 
normal functions/static methods and object methids could be alleviated - 
if you requiere that for a method to be non-static, it should declare a 
first input parameter named "this", for which the type either has to be 
a supertype of the object in which it's defined, or this type itself. It 
should also be possible to omit the type, which would implicitly mean 
the last case. "this" would also have to become a reserved word then.

This would also force to add operator:: to call these functions which 
have "this" without assigning it to the current object.

I believe this would make OO more acessible to people who don't believe 
in it (yet). Else you simply get a bit too much magic.

-i.

Sebastian Moleski wrote:
 Hi,
 
 One thing that has always made me wonder when I see delegates (pointers to
 member functions): why not allow delegates be assigned static member
 functions or regular non-member functions? The way it could work is that the
 pointer to the object inside the delegate be set to null and, when the
 delegate is invoked, a run-time check is added to use proper call
 semantics.What do you all think?
 
 sm

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Ilya Minkov" <midiclub 8ung.at> wrote in message
news:bb8cdm$2dqg$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I believe this would make OO more acessible to people who don't believe
 in it (yet). Else you simply get a bit too much magic.

You have an excellent point. Put too much magic in, and people will lose
faith in it working. Me, I'm not comfortable coding unless I know exactly
what the compiler is going to do with my code.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> writes:

I have no problem with your suggested mechanism, and confess I'm quite
confused by the responses from Walter and Ilya. (Mind you I've spent about
36hrs of the last 48 writing documentation and test programs, so am probably
running on vapour atm...)

"Sebastian Moleski" <s.moleski tcu.edu> wrote in message
news:bb860k$24m2$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Hi,

 One thing that has always made me wonder when I see delegates (pointers to
 member functions): why not allow delegates be assigned static member
 functions or regular non-member functions? The way it could work is that

the
 pointer to the object inside the delegate be set to null and, when the
 delegate is invoked, a run-time check is added to use proper call
 semantics.What do you all think?

 sm