• %u (6/6) Dec 23 2010 Is it possible to give a function a class(type) as an argument such that...
• %u (4/4) Dec 23 2010 Should have been this:
• Denis Koroskin (4/8) Dec 23 2010 Try this (not tested):
• %u (4/15) Dec 23 2010 Thanks,
• bearophile (4/5) Dec 24 2010 But this has strong limitations. For this problem templates are usually ...
• Steven Schveighoffer (6/10) Dec 27 2010 void func(T)(){
• %u (3/14) Dec 29 2010 The reason I asked for a non-templated solution is because they don't ha...
• Steven Schveighoffer (8/23) Dec 29 2010 I don't know what you mean. Templated solution does not require a commo...
• %u (8/32) Dec 29 2010 Yeah, sorry, I meant it the other way around: I need a common interface.
• %u (1/1) Dec 29 2010 Is it not possible to have a "type" type?
• Steven Schveighoffer (10/11) Dec 30 2010 In compile time, you can have type parameters with ease using templates.

%u <e ee.com> writes:

Is it possible to give a function a class(type) as an argument such that the
function can call its constructor, without using templates.

void func(T t){
  new T();
}

Or, what is the type of a type? :)

%u <e ee.com> writes:

Should have been this:

void func(type t){
  new t();
}

"Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:28:49 +0300, %u <e ee.com> wrote:

 Should have been this:

 void func(type t){
   new t();
 }

Try this (not tested):

class Test {}
Object o = Object.factory("Test");

%u <e ee.com> writes:

== Quote from Denis Koroskin (2korden gmail.com)'s article
 On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 01:28:49 +0300, %u <e ee.com> wrote:
 Should have been this:

 void func(type t){
   new t();
 }

 Try this (not tested):
 class Test {}
 Object o = Object.factory("Test");

Thanks,
Hiding in Object.. interesting :)
Making the type a string, does this make using small class names more efficient?

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

%u:

 Hiding in Object.. interesting :)

But this has strong limitations. For this problem templates are usually used.

Bye,
bearophile

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:28:49 -0500, %u <e ee.com> wrote:

 Should have been this:

 void func(type t){
   new t();
 }

void func(T)(){
    new T();
}

When you are passing types into functions, use templates.

-Steve

%u <e ee.com> writes:

== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy yahoo.com)'s article
 On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:28:49 -0500, %u <e ee.com> wrote:
 Should have been this:

 void func(type t){
   new t();
 }

 void func(T)(){
     new T();
 }
 When you are passing types into functions, use templates.
 -Steve

The reason I asked for a non-templated solution is because they don't have a
common interface signature.

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:33:21 -0500, %u <e ee.com> wrote:

 == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy yahoo.com)'s article
 On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:28:49 -0500, %u <e ee.com> wrote:
 Should have been this:

 void func(type t){
   new t();
 }

 void func(T)(){
     new T();
 }
 When you are passing types into functions, use templates.
 -Steve

 The reason I asked for a non-templated solution is because they don't  
 have a
 common interface signature.

I don't know what you mean.  Templated solution does not require a common  
interface.  This works with any type:

void func(T)(){
    T t;
}

Maybe you can post an example of what you are trying to solve?

-Steve

%u <e ee.com> writes:

== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy yahoo.com)'s article
 On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:33:21 -0500, %u <e ee.com> wrote:
 == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy yahoo.com)'s article
 On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:28:49 -0500, %u <e ee.com> wrote:
 Should have been this:

 void func(type t){
   new t();
 }

 void func(T)(){
     new T();
 }
 When you are passing types into functions, use templates.
 -Steve

 The reason I asked for a non-templated solution is because they don't
 have a
 common interface signature.

 I don't know what you mean.  Templated solution does not require a common
 interface.  This works with any type:
 void func(T)(){
     T t;
 }
 Maybe you can post an example of what you are trying to solve?
 -Steve

Yeah, sorry, I meant it the other way around: I need a common interface.

class C1: I
..
class C9: I

I'd like to pass any C(a) type to any C(b) object such that C(b) can spawn a
C(a).
What would be the common signature of these two functions?
And how would the object save the type?

%u <e ee.com> writes:

Is it not possible to have a "type" type?

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:25:05 -0500, %u <e ee.com> wrote:

 Is it not possible to have a "type" type?

In compile time, you can have type parameters with ease using templates.

During runtime, you can use the TypeInfo object, which is accessed via  
typeid:

auto ti = typeid(int); // ti is TypeInfo type

See docs for TypeInfo in object.di

Now, the only issue with TypeInfo is that D runtime reflection is woefully  
supported.  You can't do much with a TypeInfo.

So again, what is it you want to do with the type type?

-Steve