Arturo, > -----Original Message----- > > > > Dave Rich wrote: > > > > Arturo, > > > > Yes, making structs behave more like classes and classes behave more > > like structs is the way to go. > > > I agree that structs can benefit from some class-like features, and we > have > recently passed one such enhancement that was raised by Mentor. But I > don't know how classes could benefit from anything available only to > structs? Presumably you mean static classes, which have been reviewed > and rejected. [DR>] No, static classes, is not what I had in the front of my mind, but put them in front of a committee with a different set of people and see what happens. :) What I had in mind was all of the assignment pattern (a.k.a aggregate expressions) syntax, and copy by value semantics. Shouldn't we be able to set all of the class properties to 0 like we can with a structure by ClassDef P = new; P = '{default:0}; > > > We're doing the language a disservice if we add a template-like feature > > for functions and not classes, or if we later find the way that works > > for functions won't work for classes. > > > I'm not sure what to make of this. Classes are already parameterized, and > I do see problems with the parameterized function proposals that have > been discussed. [DR>] Parameterized classes still have the same problem Brad has been objecting to with some of the parameterized function proposals: you still have to instantiate a parameterized class handle for each class parameterization. > > > Dave > > >Received on Thu May 5 23:16:25 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 05 2005 - 23:16:30 PDT