digitalmars.D.learn - ref is pointer sugar?
- Pluto <pluto planets.not> Aug 06 2010
- "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> Aug 06 2010
- Pluto <pluto planets.not> Aug 06 2010
- Pluto <pluto planets.not> Aug 06 2010
- Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> Aug 06 2010
- Pluto <pluto planets.not> Aug 06 2010
Are these equivalent?
S s;//struct
void f(ref S s){s.x++;}
f(s);
void f2(S* s){(*s).x++;}
f2(&s);
If so, why is it stated that ref is very rarely used?
It looks like something I would use a lot with structures.
Aug 06 2010
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:51:31 -0400, Pluto <pluto planets.not> wrote:Are these equivalent? S s;//struct void f(ref S s){s.x++;} f(s); void f2(S* s){(*s).x++;} f2(&s);
They are pretty much equivalent. I think the code generated actually will be exactly the same. However, the compiler treats ref differently than pointers. For example, ref is allowed in the safe subset of D, and pointers are not. Note that you do not need to dereference pointers to access their pointed-to members. i.e.: void f2(S* s){s.x++;}If so, why is it stated that ref is very rarely used? It looks like something I would use a lot with structures.
What? Where does it say that? That's very wrong, ref is used everywhere. If not explicitly, at least every struct member function passes 'this' by ref. -Steve
Aug 06 2010
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy yahoo.com)'s articleOn Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:51:31 -0400, Pluto <pluto planets.not> wrote:Are these equivalent? S s;//struct void f(ref S s){s.x++;} f(s); void f2(S* s){(*s).x++;} f2(&s);
be exactly the same. However, the compiler treats ref differently than pointers. For example, ref is allowed in the safe subset of D, and pointers are not. Note that you do not need to dereference pointers to access their pointed-to members. i.e.: void f2(S* s){s.x++;}If so, why is it stated that ref is very rarely used? It looks like something I would use a lot with structures.
everywhere. If not explicitly, at least every struct member function passes 'this' by ref. -Steve
"out is rare enough, and ref even rarer, to attach the keywords to them and leave in as the default. " I would think out to be more rare then ref.
Aug 06 2010
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy yahoo.com)'s articleOn Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:51:31 -0400, Pluto <pluto planets.not> wrote:Are these equivalent? S s;//struct void f(ref S s){s.x++;} f(s); void f2(S* s){(*s).x++;} f2(&s);
be exactly the same. However, the compiler treats ref differently than pointers. For example, ref is allowed in the safe subset of D, and pointers are not. Note that you do not need to dereference pointers to access their pointed-to members. i.e.: void f2(S* s){s.x++;}
Where is this in the spec? I can't find it. Still used to ->
Aug 06 2010
On 2010-08-06 15:33, Pluto wrote:== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy yahoo.com)'s articleOn Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:51:31 -0400, Pluto<pluto planets.not> wrote:Are these equivalent? S s;//struct void f(ref S s){s.x++;} f(s); void f2(S* s){(*s).x++;} f2(&s);
be exactly the same. However, the compiler treats ref differently than pointers. For example, ref is allowed in the safe subset of D, and pointers are not. Note that you do not need to dereference pointers to access their pointed-to members. i.e.: void f2(S* s){s.x++;}
Where is this in the spec? I can't find it. Still used to ->
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/class.html section "Fields". -- /Jacob Carlborg
Aug 06 2010
== Quote from Jacob Carlborg (doob me.com)'s articleOn 2010-08-06 15:33, Pluto wrote:== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy yahoo.com)'s articleOn Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:51:31 -0400, Pluto<pluto planets.not> wrote:Are these equivalent? S s;//struct void f(ref S s){s.x++;} f(s); void f2(S* s){(*s).x++;} f2(&s);
be exactly the same. However, the compiler treats ref differently than pointers. For example, ref is allowed in the safe subset of D, and pointers are not. Note that you do not need to dereference pointers to access their pointed-to members. i.e.: void f2(S* s){s.x++;}
Where is this in the spec? I can't find it. Still used to ->
Isn't that showing a bit of a gap in the specs? (bug report?)
Aug 06 2010









Pluto <pluto planets.not> 