D - Reflection?
- Patrick Down (6/6) Apr 05 2002 I thought I remember reading somewhere in the documentation that
- Walter (4/10) Apr 05 2002 It isn't there now, but it is anticipated to become part of the ClassInf...
- Pavel Minayev (7/11) Apr 05 2002 I guess you won't see that for structures, since they are supposed
- Patrick Down (9/25) Apr 05 2002 I think that there needs to be some way to access this information for
- Pavel Minayev (9/15) Apr 06 2002 Well, structures can contain references to Object, so what?
- Patrick Down (16/21) Apr 06 2002 The information can be made available without doing anything to make
- Pavel Minayev (20/27) Apr 06 2002 You are of course right. I should have thought a bit more about this =)
- Nuno Nunes (10/10) Apr 06 2002 I think the problem here is with the fact (From what I understood)
- OddesE (10/17) Apr 06 2002 I wouldn't call class completion, no matter how much I
- Pavel Minayev (12/14) Apr 06 2002 Why not?
- OddesE (17/31) Apr 07 2002 Because I like it's drag-and-drop form editing
- Pavel Minayev (5/12) Apr 07 2002 Drag'n'drop rulez. Code completion rulez too. D&D + CodeCompletion =
- OddesE (23/35) Apr 07 2002 Yep! :)
- Pavel Minayev (11/19) Apr 07 2002 No. But I was thinking of asking Walter to add it. =)
- OddesE (10/29) Apr 07 2002 :)
I thought I remember reading somewhere in the documentation that D would support some degree of reflection like Java. ( The ablility to inspect classes and structures at runtime to see the names, position and types of their members. ) But I can't find it though. Perhaps it was mentioned in the forums. I hope this is true. I think this is a usefull feature.
Apr 05 2002
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> "Patrick Down" <pat codemoon.com> wrote in message news:Xns91E7AB18DAABBpatcodemooncom 63.105.9.61...I thought I remember reading somewhere in the documentation that D would support some degree of reflection like Java. ( The ablility to inspect classes and structures at runtime to see the names, position and types of their members. ) But I can't find it though. Perhaps it was mentioned in the forums. I hope this is true. I think this is a usefull feature.It isn't there now, but it is anticipated to become part of the ClassInfo object that is available for each class type.
Apr 05 2002
"Patrick Down" <pat codemoon.com> wrote in message news:Xns91E7AB18DAABBpatcodemooncom 63.105.9.61...I thought I remember reading somewhere in the documentation that D would support some degree of reflection like Java. ( The ablility to inspect classes and structures at runtime to see the names, position and types of their members. ) But I can't find it though. Perhaps itI guess you won't see that for structures, since they are supposed to be lightweight; but for classes, there's ClassInfo, which already provides some useful information, like class name, its interfaces, and base class. If only we could construct an object by ClassInfo... (hint, hint!) =)
Apr 05 2002
"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> wrote in news:a8lrrc$25l5$2 digitaldaemon.com:"Patrick Down" <pat codemoon.com> wrote in message news:Xns91E7AB18DAABBpatcodemooncom 63.105.9.61...I think that there needs to be some way to access this information for structures too. I think I remember Walter saying that he wants to use this information for optimizing the garbage collector and it's possible for strutures to have Object references too. Also to build things like an automatic object persistance you need to be able to completely navigate stuctures as well as classes.I thought I remember reading somewhere in the documentation that D would support some degree of reflection like Java. ( The ablility to inspect classes and structures at runtime to see the names, position and types of their members. ) But I can't find it though. Perhaps itI guess you won't see that for structures, since they are supposed to be lightweight; but for classes, there's ClassInfo, which already provides some useful information, like class name, its interfaces, and base class.If only we could construct an object by ClassInfo... (hint, hint!) =)I'd vote for that too.
Apr 05 2002
"Patrick Down" <pat codemoon.com> wrote in message news:Xns91E7E72FCA314patcodemooncom 63.105.9.61...I think that there needs to be some way to access this information for structures too. I think I remember Walter saying that he wants to use this information for optimizing the garbage collector and it's possible for strutures to have Object references too.Well, structures can contain references to Object, so what? Adding classinfo pointer to each structure would alse make them incompatible with the API, since it expects normal C structs.Also to build things like an automatic object persistance you need to be able to completely navigate stuctures as well as classes.I guess structures are better copied byte-by-byte, while classes would be more complicated. Those rare cases when struct contains reference to object don't worth the thing - if you really need it to be persistent, make it class, not struct.
Apr 06 2002
"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> wrote in news:a8mk9t$n95$1 digitaldaemon.com:"Patrick Down" <pat codemoon.com> wrote in message news:Xns91E7E72FCA314patcodemooncom 63.105.9.61... Adding classinfo pointer to each structure would alse make them incompatible with the API, since it expects normal C structs.The information can be made available without doing anything to make stuctures incompatable. Unlike class references the compiler knows the real type of a stucture in all instances so a structure does not need to carry a extra pointer to a ClassInfo like classes do. All that is needed is a little extra atribute to access the information. struct Abc { } Abc astruct; ClassInfo b = astruct.type; In the line above the compiler knows that astruct is of type Abc so just subsitutes the pointer to Abc's ClassInfo in place of atruct.type.
Apr 06 2002
"Patrick Down" <pat codemoon.com> wrote in message news:Xns91E86C7657A97patcodemooncom 63.105.9.61...All that is needed is a little extra atribute to access the information.You are of course right. I should have thought a bit more about this =)struct Abc { } Abc astruct; ClassInfo b = astruct.type;Since ClassInfo is class-specific and contains fields like destructor and vtbl[], it's probably better to define another class just for structs: class StructInfo { struct FieldInfo { char[] name; uint offset; ... } char[] name; uint[FieldInfo] fields; } And then: Foo foo; StructInfo fooinfo = foo.structinfo;
Apr 06 2002
Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of a structinfo. It's just not the same animal as a class, and trying to mush the two together into classinfo seems a mistake. "Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> wrote in message news:a8nk19$1qvo$1 digitaldaemon.com..."Patrick Down" <pat codemoon.com> wrote in message news:Xns91E86C7657A97patcodemooncom 63.105.9.61...All that is needed is a little extra atribute to access the information.You are of course right. I should have thought a bit more about this =)struct Abc { } Abc astruct; ClassInfo b = astruct.type;Since ClassInfo is class-specific and contains fields like destructor and vtbl[], it's probably better to define another class just for structs: class StructInfo { struct FieldInfo { char[] name; uint offset; ... } char[] name; uint[FieldInfo] fields; } And then: Foo foo; StructInfo fooinfo = foo.structinfo;
Apr 06 2002
I love it when everyone agrees like this :) -- Stijn OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com http://OddesE.cjb.net _________________________________________________ Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail
Apr 07 2002
I think the problem here is with the fact (From what I understood) that there is no headers (.h) files in D. Imagine you have a commercial library. If you do not have headers (and you don't want to give the source code) there must be a way to the programmer to know the functions, classes and structures in the library. You may give it in the documentation, but it do not work for a RAD tool with code completation (that is the best feature in those tools). For what I see were you must rely all public interfaces in classes (for those will be possible for acess member information) (I'm not saying thats a bad strategy)
Apr 06 2002
"Nuno Nunes" <nachn altagis.biz> wrote in message news:3CAF05AC.6030007 altagis.biz...I think the problem here is with the fact (From what I understood) that there is no headers (.h) files in D. Imagine you have a commercial library. If you do not have headers (and you don't want to give the source code) there must be a way to the programmer to know the functions, classes and structures in the library. You may give it in the documentation, but it do not work for a RAD tool with code completation (that is the best feature in those tools).I wouldn't call class completion, no matter how much I like it, the best feature of Delphi... :) -- Stijn OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com http://OddesE.cjb.net _________________________________________________ Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail
Apr 06 2002
"OddesE" <OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a8n4sq$19ub$1 digitaldaemon.com...I wouldn't call class completion, no matter how much I like it, the best feature of Delphi... :)Why not? By the way, Delphi is just an example of such approach - there are no headers there, and units can be in compiled form - and still you get the CodeComplete working. The solution is to store information about types and functions, probably in some binary form (or XML?) in a separate file, generated by the compiler when it processes the module. So, for each module, you get an .obj with the code in it, and, say, a .dmi (D module interface) with all public members listed. Then, both the compiler and the IDE can rely on information in this file.
Apr 06 2002
"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> wrote in message news:a8n8h9$1dh2$1 digitaldaemon.com..."OddesE" <OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a8n4sq$19ub$1 digitaldaemon.com...Because I like it's drag-and-drop form editing capabilities and the object inspector etc. more :) This is what sets Delphi apart from the crowd. Visual Studio also has code completion (although it's a little buggy), but it's drag and drop form editing comes nowhere near that of Delphi! It's improved (read: More like Delphi) in .net though! ;) But I *love* code completion too!I wouldn't call class completion, no matter how much I like it, the best feature of Delphi... :)Why not?By the way, Delphi is just an example of such approach - there are no headers there, and units can be in compiled form - and still you get the CodeComplete working. The solution is to store information about types and functions, probably in some binary form (or XML?) in a separate file, generated by the compiler when it processes the module. So, for each module, you get an .obj with the code in it, and, say, a .dmi (D module interface) with all public members listed. Then, both the compiler and the IDE can rely on information in this file.You are right. -- Stijn OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com http://OddesE.cjb.net _________________________________________________ Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail
Apr 07 2002
"OddesE" <OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a8phk0$1o23$1 digitaldaemon.com...Because I like it's drag-and-drop form editing capabilities and the object inspector etc. more :) This is what sets Delphi apart from the crowd. Visual Studio also has code completion (although it's a little buggy), but it's drag and drop form editing comes nowhere near that of Delphi! It's improved (read: More like Delphi) in .net though! ;)Drag'n'drop rulez. Code completion rulez too. D&D + CodeCompletion = Delphi (or C++Builder for us C++ fans). Conclusion: Delphi (C++Builder) rulez.
Apr 07 2002
"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> wrote in message news:a8po2b$25nj$1 digitaldaemon.com..."OddesE" <OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a8phk0$1o23$1 digitaldaemon.com...Yep! :) On that note, is there something like the Delphi 'published' keyword in D? For people not used to programming in Delphi: In addition to private, protected and public Delphi introduces the keyword published to declare that a variable may be edited from the object inspector at design-time. This is a very cool feature of Delphi IMHO. -- Stijn OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com http://OddesE.cjb.net _________________________________________________ Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail -- Stijn OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com http://OddesE.cjb.net _________________________________________________ Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mailBecause I like it's drag-and-drop form editing capabilities and the object inspector etc. more :) This is what sets Delphi apart from the crowd. Visual Studio also has code completion (although it's a little buggy), but it's drag and drop form editing comes nowhere near that of Delphi! It's improved (read: More like Delphi) in .net though! ;)Drag'n'drop rulez. Code completion rulez too. D&D + CodeCompletion = Delphi (or C++Builder for us C++ fans). Conclusion: Delphi (C++Builder) rulez.
Apr 07 2002
"OddesE" <OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a8q0sk$2k82$1 digitaldaemon.com...On that note, is there something like the Delphi 'published' keyword in D?No. But I was thinking of asking Walter to add it. =)For people not used to programming in Delphi: In addition to private, protected and public Delphi introduces the keyword published to declare that a variable may be edited from the object inspector at design-time. This is a very cool feature of Delphi IMHO.Well, actually its meaning is a bit different - it said that the member - function or variable - must be included into the RTTI members table for that class. Since it doesn't make sence to include all members of the class into the table, thus bloating the executable heavily, you just mark those variables as "accessable via RTTI" explicitly. And then Object Inspector looks at the table of members of the class, and displays those found there...
Apr 07 2002
"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> wrote in message news:a8q2gf$2lt9$1 digitaldaemon.com..."OddesE" <OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a8q0sk$2k82$1 digitaldaemon.com...:)On that note, is there something like the Delphi 'published' keyword in D?No. But I was thinking of asking Walter to add it. =)Ah ok, thanks for explaining. -- Stijn OddesE_XYZ hotmail.com http://OddesE.cjb.net _________________________________________________ Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mailFor people not used to programming in Delphi: In addition to private, protected and public Delphi introduces the keyword published to declare that a variable may be edited from the object inspector at design-time. This is a very cool feature of Delphi IMHO.Well, actually its meaning is a bit different - it said that the member - function or variable - must be included into the RTTI members table for that class. Since it doesn't make sence to include all members of the class into the table, thus bloating the executable heavily, you just mark those variables as "accessable via RTTI" explicitly. And then Object Inspector looks at the table of members of the class, and displays those found there...
Apr 07 2002