• C <dont respond.com> Mar 24 2004
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Mar 24 2004
• Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> Mar 25 2004
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Mar 26 2004
• Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> Mar 29 2004

C <dont respond.com> writes:

Is this planned for 1.0 ?  So we can intercahnge them etc ?

C

-- 
D Newsgroup.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"C" <dont respond.com> wrote in message news:opr5d05kxyehmtou localhost...
 Is this planned for 1.0 ?  So we can intercahnge them etc ?


No, it'll be a 2.0 feature. It's conceptually simple, but there are a lot of
tricky details to get right.

Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:

Walter wrote:
 "C" <dont respond.com> wrote in message news:opr5d05kxyehmtou localhost...
 
Is this planned for 1.0 ?  So we can intercahnge them etc ?


 
 No, it'll be a 2.0 feature. It's conceptually simple, but there are a lot of
 tricky details to get right.


Did you ever look at my proposal 
(D/24868)?  I was curious 
what you thought of it.  On the one hand, it's pretty ambitious...but it 
seems sort of D-ish to me.  It is certainly an interesting blending of 
delegates with arrays...

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> wrote in message
news:c40cec$hsu$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Walter wrote:
 "C" <dont respond.com> wrote in message




Is this planned for 1.0 ?  So we can intercahnge them etc ?



 No, it'll be a 2.0 feature. It's conceptually simple, but there are a




 tricky details to get right.


 Did you ever look at my proposal
 (D/24868)?  I was curious
 what you thought of it.  On the one hand, it's pretty ambitious...but it
 seems sort of D-ish to me.  It is certainly an interesting blending of
 delegates with arrays...


It's a good idea, but there are several tricky implementation issues due to
the vagaries of the various function calling conventions.

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Walter wrote:

 "C" <dont respond.com> wrote in message news:opr5d05kxyehmtou localhost...
 
Is this planned for 1.0 ?  So we can intercahnge them etc ?


 No, it'll be a 2.0 feature. It's conceptually simple, but there are a lot of
 tricky details to get right.


Supporting null in place of the frame/object pointer of a delegate seems 
a straightforward solution to me....

And would we still have the basic function pointer, for situations where 
a delegate would be unnecessary, or perhaps be unusable by foreign 
code/APIs?

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the 
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep 
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.