www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - Delegate and function unification

reply C <dont respond.com> writes:
Is this planned for 1.0 ?  So we can intercahnge them etc ?

C

-- 
D Newsgroup.
Mar 24 2004
parent reply "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.
Mar 24 2004
next sibling parent reply 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...
Mar 25 2004
parent "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.
Mar 26 2004
prev sibling parent 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.
Mar 29 2004