digitalmars.D - Returning a struct by reference
- Simon TRENY (24/24) Mar 21 2009 Hi there!
- grauzone (6/41) Mar 21 2009 Yes. Make the variable public.
- Simon TRENY (3/48) Mar 21 2009 Ok, but then, what if I'd like to make the variable "read-only"? i.e. pr...
- Daniel Keep (5/8) Mar 21 2009 So... you're rejecting a solution on the basis that it prevents you from
- grauzone (6/55) Mar 21 2009 Then you write a getter that simply returns the field by value.
- Simon TRENY (3/62) Mar 21 2009 If I add a getter-property that returns the field by value, the followin...
- BCS (10/18) Mar 21 2009 That is correct. Reference returns are on the todo list. For now this Ha...
- Simon TRENY (38/51) Mar 21 2009 Here is a complete example of what I'd like to achieve:
- Sergey Gromov (3/7) Mar 21 2009 D2 supports this.
- grauzone (23/84) Mar 21 2009 But if position is returned as ref, this still could happen. The
Hi there! I'm quite new at D and I'm still just playing with it, but there is a thing that I find currently missing. Sometimes, I'd like to be able to return a struct by reference and not by value. For example, in the following example: struct Position { float x; float y; } class Object { private Position m_position; public Position position() { return m_position; } } I'd like to be able to write things like this: myObject.position.x = 43 to actually change the position of the object. But right now, since "position" is a struct, it is returned by value and not by reference, and then the previous instruction won't change the position of the object, but it will work on a copy of the position field. Here is the solutions that I can see to this problem: - Returning a pointer to the position: "public Position *position() { ... }", but I'd like to keep my code as free from pointers as possible. - Make "Position" a class and not a struct. That could be a solution, but then, when I'll do things like "Position pos = object.position; pos.x = 43;", it will effectively change the position of the object, which I wouldn't like with this syntax. Actually, I'd like to be able to do a thing like this: public ref Position position() { return m_position; } which would be the equivalent form to passing structs by reference in a parameter. Is there a way to do this in D? Regards, Simon
Mar 21 2009
Simon TRENY wrote:Hi there! I'm quite new at D and I'm still just playing with it, but there is a thing that I find currently missing. Sometimes, I'd like to be able to return a struct by reference and not by value. For example, in the following example: struct Position { float x; float y; } class Object { private Position m_position; public Position position() { return m_position; } } I'd like to be able to write things like this: myObject.position.x = 43 to actually change the position of the object. But right now, since "position" is a struct, it is returned by value and not by reference, and then the previous instruction won't change the position of the object, but it will work on a copy of the position field. Here is the solutions that I can see to this problem: - Returning a pointer to the position: "public Position *position() { ... }", but I'd like to keep my code as free from pointers as possible. - Make "Position" a class and not a struct. That could be a solution, but then, when I'll do things like "Position pos = object.position; pos.x = 43;", it will effectively change the position of the object, which I wouldn't like with this syntax. Actually, I'd like to be able to do a thing like this: public ref Position position() { return m_position; } which would be the equivalent form to passing structs by reference in a parameter. Is there a way to do this in D?Yes. Make the variable public. class Object { Position position; } This code is even simpler than your's above. Incredible, isn't it?Regards, Simon
Mar 21 2009
grauzone Wrote:Simon TRENY wrote:Ok, but then, what if I'd like to make the variable "read-only"? i.e. preventing the user from writing things like this: myObject.position = pos2;Hi there! I'm quite new at D and I'm still just playing with it, but there is a thing that I find currently missing. Sometimes, I'd like to be able to return a struct by reference and not by value. For example, in the following example: struct Position { float x; float y; } class Object { private Position m_position; public Position position() { return m_position; } } I'd like to be able to write things like this: myObject.position.x = 43 to actually change the position of the object. But right now, since "position" is a struct, it is returned by value and not by reference, and then the previous instruction won't change the position of the object, but it will work on a copy of the position field. Here is the solutions that I can see to this problem: - Returning a pointer to the position: "public Position *position() { ... }", but I'd like to keep my code as free from pointers as possible. - Make "Position" a class and not a struct. That could be a solution, but then, when I'll do things like "Position pos = object.position; pos.x = 43;", it will effectively change the position of the object, which I wouldn't like with this syntax. Actually, I'd like to be able to do a thing like this: public ref Position position() { return m_position; } which would be the equivalent form to passing structs by reference in a parameter. Is there a way to do this in D?Yes. Make the variable public. class Object { Position position; } This code is even simpler than your's above. Incredible, isn't it?Regards, Simon
Mar 21 2009
Simon TRENY wrote:Ok, but then, what if I'd like to make the variable "read-only"? i.e. preventing the user from writing things like this: myObject.position = pos2;So... you're rejecting a solution on the basis that it prevents you from doing the exact opposite of what you want to do? *boggle* -- Daniel
Mar 21 2009
Simon TRENY wrote:grauzone Wrote:Then you write a getter that simply returns the field by value. The D compiler will (hopefully) inline the getter function, so there shouldn't be a disadvantage in performance. Note: I think D2.0 wants to introduce ref-returns at some point in the future.Simon TRENY wrote:Ok, but then, what if I'd like to make the variable "read-only"? i.e. preventing the user from writing things like this: myObject.position = pos2;Hi there! I'm quite new at D and I'm still just playing with it, but there is a thing that I find currently missing. Sometimes, I'd like to be able to return a struct by reference and not by value. For example, in the following example: struct Position { float x; float y; } class Object { private Position m_position; public Position position() { return m_position; } } I'd like to be able to write things like this: myObject.position.x = 43 to actually change the position of the object. But right now, since "position" is a struct, it is returned by value and not by reference, and then the previous instruction won't change the position of the object, but it will work on a copy of the position field. Here is the solutions that I can see to this problem: - Returning a pointer to the position: "public Position *position() { ... }", but I'd like to keep my code as free from pointers as possible. - Make "Position" a class and not a struct. That could be a solution, but then, when I'll do things like "Position pos = object.position; pos.x = 43;", it will effectively change the position of the object, which I wouldn't like with this syntax. Actually, I'd like to be able to do a thing like this: public ref Position position() { return m_position; } which would be the equivalent form to passing structs by reference in a parameter. Is there a way to do this in D?Yes. Make the variable public. class Object { Position position; } This code is even simpler than your's above. Incredible, isn't it?Regards, Simon
Mar 21 2009
grauzone Wrote:Simon TRENY wrote:If I add a getter-property that returns the field by value, the following instruction "object.position.x = 12;" won't modify the position of the object, but will only modify the returned copy of the position, right? That's actually why I'd like to have a getter that returns the field by reference and not by value.grauzone Wrote:Then you write a getter that simply returns the field by value. The D compiler will (hopefully) inline the getter function, so there shouldn't be a disadvantage in performance.Simon TRENY wrote:Ok, but then, what if I'd like to make the variable "read-only"? i.e. preventing the user from writing things like this: myObject.position = pos2;Hi there! I'm quite new at D and I'm still just playing with it, but there is a thing that I find currently missing. Sometimes, I'd like to be able to return a struct by reference and not by value. For example, in the following example: struct Position { float x; float y; } class Object { private Position m_position; public Position position() { return m_position; } } I'd like to be able to write things like this: myObject.position.x = 43 to actually change the position of the object. But right now, since "position" is a struct, it is returned by value and not by reference, and then the previous instruction won't change the position of the object, but it will work on a copy of the position field. Here is the solutions that I can see to this problem: - Returning a pointer to the position: "public Position *position() { ... }", but I'd like to keep my code as free from pointers as possible. - Make "Position" a class and not a struct. That could be a solution, but then, when I'll do things like "Position pos = object.position; pos.x = 43;", it will effectively change the position of the object, which I wouldn't like with this syntax. Actually, I'd like to be able to do a thing like this: public ref Position position() { return m_position; } which would be the equivalent form to passing structs by reference in a parameter. Is there a way to do this in D?Yes. Make the variable public. class Object { Position position; } This code is even simpler than your's above. Incredible, isn't it?Note: I think D2.0 wants to introduce ref-returns at some point in the future.Regards, Simon
Mar 21 2009
Hello Simon,If I add a getter-property that returns the field by value, the following instruction "object.position.x = 12;" won't modify the position of the object, but will only modify the returned copy of the position, right? That's actually why I'd like to have a getter that returns the field by reference and not by value.That is correct. Reference returns are on the todo list. For now this Hack should work. struct S { float x; float y; } class C { S s class C_S { void x(float v){ s.x=v; } void y(float v){ s.y=v; } } C_S pos() { return new C_S(); } }
Mar 21 2009
Daniel Keep Wrote:Simon TRENY wrote:Here is a complete example of what I'd like to achieve: struct Position { private float m_x; private float m_y; public float x() { return m_x; } public void x(float x) { m_x = x; EmitSignal("changed"); } public float y() { return m_y; } public void y(float y) { m_y = y; EmitSignal("changed"); } } class Object { private Position m_position; public this() { m_position.CallOnSignal("changed", onPositionChanged); } //This syntax is not working public ref Position position() { return m_position; } public void onPositionChanged() { writeln("Position Changed!!); } } With this "fictional" code, I could write things like: object.position.x = 14; and the object will be "aware" that its position has changed. Making the "position"-variable public will lead the user to be able to do things like this: object.position = pos2; and then, the object won't be "aware" that its position has changed. And this is a problem for me. I hope it's clearer nowOk, but then, what if I'd like to make the variable "read-only"? i.e. preventing the user from writing things like this: myObject.position = pos2;So... you're rejecting a solution on the basis that it prevents you from doing the exact opposite of what you want to do? *boggle* -- Daniel
Mar 21 2009
Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:55:13 -0400, Simon TRENY wrote://This syntax is not working public ref Position position() { return m_position; }D2 supports this. D1 won't, ever. I think.
Mar 21 2009
Simon TRENY wrote:Daniel Keep Wrote:But if position is returned as ref, this still could happen. The returned value is still assignable, and because it's a ref, overwriting it is like overwriting m_position directly. As far as I see, your position()-getter just emulates a public field. Including overwriting by assignment. Now D2.0 has const. If position() would return a const object, this kind of unwanted "overwriting" couldn't happen. This improves correctness, because uncatched changes or changes to temporaries can't happen. But then again, the setters in the Position struct wouldn't work, because the struct is const (as far as I understand the const system). This means returning the field as a "const ref" wouldn't help. Also, how is this EmitSignal() working? What happens if you write: Position p = object.position; p.x = 14; //EmitSignal() calls what? p is simply a bit-copy of the struct returned by the getter, and EmitSignal() has no way to check if it's still supposed to notify class Object. (All solutions I can come up with sound really hairy and hackish.) Maybe you're better off with Position as a class instead of a struct. Even when you use D2.0's const/opAssign/copy-ctor/post-blit/ref-return features. Looking forward to the replies pointing out that D2.0 actually allows to implement exactly what you want, and how this is done.Simon TRENY wrote:Here is a complete example of what I'd like to achieve: struct Position { private float m_x; private float m_y; public float x() { return m_x; } public void x(float x) { m_x = x; EmitSignal("changed"); } public float y() { return m_y; } public void y(float y) { m_y = y; EmitSignal("changed"); } } class Object { private Position m_position; public this() { m_position.CallOnSignal("changed", onPositionChanged); } //This syntax is not working public ref Position position() { return m_position; } public void onPositionChanged() { writeln("Position Changed!!); } } With this "fictional" code, I could write things like: object.position.x = 14; and the object will be "aware" that its position has changed. Making the "position"-variable public will lead the user to be able to do things like this: object.position = pos2; and then, the object won't be "aware" that its position has changed. And this is a problem for me.Ok, but then, what if I'd like to make the variable "read-only"? i.e. preventing the user from writing things like this: myObject.position = pos2;So... you're rejecting a solution on the basis that it prevents you from doing the exact opposite of what you want to do? *boggle* -- DanielI hope it's clearer now
Mar 21 2009