• C. Dunn (10/22) Aug 16 2007 But Walter, how did you handle operator new()? It needs to be agnostic ...

C. Dunn <cdunn2001 gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright Wrote:

 James Dennett wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Value types are fundamentally different from reference types. D gives
 you the choice.

 
 C++ gives you *more* choice by allowing easier migration between
 the two without imposing performance or syntactic differences.

 
 That isn't my experience. In my work on DMDscript in D, I changed some 
 types between struct and class to try out some variations, and found it 
 to be a lot easier than in C++. For one thing, I didn't have to find and 
 edit all the -> and .'s.


But Walter, how did you handle operator new()?  It needs to be agnostic about
class/struct.

class C{int x;};
stuct S{int x;};
typedef C MyType;
//typedef S* MyType;
MyType inst = new MyType;

If you use the second typedef, this will not compile!  That is the problem.

Why not provide an operator New() which expects a pointer type when used for
structs?  Just have the compiler translate it.  I cannot see how to write such
a generic operator New() myself.

This one small change would be a great boon to C/C++ programmer thinking of
adopting D.