Thread overview | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
December 30, 2004 idea for static class construction order | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Was just thinking about it. Why not just add it into the module's static this()? class A { public: static this() { ... } } class B { public: static this() { ... } } static this() { static B.this(); static A.this(); } Are there any parsing / lex problems with this construct? I'm just wondering, as the order of static constructors has been undefined for a while, and it'd kind of be nice to see it implemented. :) |
January 22, 2005 Re: idea for static class construction order | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jarrett Billingsley | I kind of like this idea. Maybe the compiler could use the explicit order, if provided, otherwise it would determine as it currently does. "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cqvr91$2a4c$1@digitaldaemon.com... > Was just thinking about it. Why not just add it into the module's static > this()? > > class A > { > public: > static this() { ... } > } > > class B > { > public: > static this() { ... } > } > > static this() > { > static B.this(); > static A.this(); > } > > Are there any parsing / lex problems with this construct? I'm just wondering, as the order of static constructors has been undefined for a while, and it'd kind of be nice to see it implemented. :) > > |
January 24, 2005 Re: idea for static class construction order | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matthew | Wow, nice to see someone finally saw it :) |
January 24, 2005 Re: idea for static class construction order | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jarrett Billingsley | I'm on a gradual trawl through all the entries since the 3rd August. ;) "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ct21v3$2pt2$1@digitaldaemon.com... > Wow, nice to see someone finally saw it :) > > |
January 24, 2005 Re: idea for static class construction order | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matthew | Matthew wrote:
> I kind of like this idea. Maybe the compiler could use the explicit order, if provided, otherwise it would determine as it currently does.
I agree that it would be a cool feature (though maybe I'm missing some unintended side effect). You can, of course, do it already; rather than declaring static constructors for the classes, simply define static functions which are called by the module constructor.
I don't know how the ordering of module constructor and any (remaining) static class constructors interact, however. I guess it would be a good idea to explicitly state the order for all classes in a module where you care.
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation