August 27, 2005
Hello all,

I have two questions about features of the D language which are currently implemented in the phobos library.

First, why is it that it is just class objects that inherit from the Object class? I would like to be able to have an array of Object's like in other languages instead of having to use a template class like boxer when I have a mixture of base types and class objects.

Second, since the Object class already declares a toString() method for all of its subclasses, why not declare serialization methods, or better yet, a Serializable or Streamable interface? Also, this should definitley all be included in the base types also, as it would be very useful to do something like:

int x = 2;
MyObject obj;
Stream s;
x.write(s);
obj.write(s);

I find myself having to write binary data or even normal text data to memory buffers a lot, and I think that this would be a good idea. Instead of the write() method in Stream being overloaded for each type, each class should simply be able to declare its own and also have a default write() method that simply writes all of its fields.
August 27, 2005
"Ethan Healey" <ehealey2007@comcast.net> wrote in message news:deohop$2dq1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Hello all,
>
> I have two questions about features of the D language which are currently implemented in the phobos library.
>
> First, why is it that it is just class objects that inherit from the Object class? I would like to be able to have an array of Object's like in other languages instead of having to use a template class like boxer when I have a mixture of base types and class objects.

D is like C/Java/C++ where primitive types like 'int' and 'double' aren't
objects and so they don't share the same syntax. It's a tradeoff between
uniformity and performance (and, in D's case, C compatibility).
Maybe beefing up boxes is an option. What's wrong with using arrays of boxes
to mix ints and objects in the same array? Too verbose?

> Second, since the Object class already declares a toString() method for all of its subclasses, why not declare serialization methods, or better yet, a Serializable or Streamable interface? Also, this should definitley all be included in the base types also, as it would be very useful to do something like:
>
> int x = 2;
> MyObject obj;
> Stream s;
> x.write(s);
> obj.write(s);
>
> I find myself having to write binary data or even normal text data to memory buffers a lot, and I think that this would be a good idea. Instead of the write() method in Stream being overloaded for each type, each class should simply be able to declare its own and also have a default write() method that simply writes all of its fields.

Adding int.write(Stream s) would be building the Stream interface into the language which is a very big commitment. It's more flexible architecture to let the stream accept an int. The uniformity of x.write(s) and obj.write(s) would be nice but it isn't worth the downsides IMHO. Your last point about having a default write() method for objects (and possibly structs and primitives?) is something Java does (and presumably C# but I haven't checked) so it isn't unreasonable but the downside is that it gets complex when dealing with versioning and marking fields as non-serializable with 'transient'. Some day D might get such a feature, though. I don't know if the RTTI information is rich enough to support deserialization currently.


Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home