1) out parameters with initializers.

Out parameters are initialized by the callee. So we should be able to
override the default initializer as we do with any other variable, for
example:
void func(out int a = 5) { a++; }

I've never needed it since now, but it should be added for consistency. (I don't know if this has been proposed before...)

2) switching through classinfoes

switch(a.classinfo)
{
    case A.classinfo:
    do something;
    break;

    case B.classinfo:
    do something else;
    break;

    default:
}

This isn't working now. I think this is very useful (I've already needed
it).
In this case the compiler should compare references, not classes (does it
already do this when comparing classinfoes with op==?).

"Dario" <supdar@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aku59v$1grs$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 1) out parameters with initializers.
>
> Out parameters are initialized by the callee. So we should be able to
> override the default initializer as we do with any other variable, for
> example:
> void func(out int a = 5) { a++; }
>
> I've never needed it since now, but it should be added for consistency. (I don't know if this has been proposed before...)

You're right, it's a lapse in consistency. I'd be a little worried about it, though, as C++ programmers will think it means a default parameter.

> 2) switching through classinfoes
>
> switch(a.classinfo)
> {
>     case A.classinfo:
>     do something;
>     break;
>
>     case B.classinfo:
>     do something else;
>     break;
>
>     default:
> }
>
> This isn't working now. I think this is very useful (I've already needed
> it).

It's a good idea.

> In this case the compiler should compare references, not classes (does it already do this when comparing classinfoes with op==?).

=== comparse references, == calls Object.eq().

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:akue2o$1q99$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Dario" <supdar@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aku59v$1grs$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > 1) out parameters with initializers.
> >
> > Out parameters are initialized by the callee. So we should be able to
> > override the default initializer as we do with any other variable, for
> > example:
> > void func(out int a = 5) { a++; }
> >
> > I've never needed it since now, but it should be added for consistency.
(I
> > don't know if this has been proposed before...)
>
> You're right, it's a lapse in consistency. I'd be a little worried about
it,
> though, as C++ programmers will think it means a default parameter.
>
> > 2) switching through classinfoes
> >
> > switch(a.classinfo)
> > {
> >     case A.classinfo:
> >     do something;
> >     break;
> >
> >     case B.classinfo:
> >     do something else;
> >     break;
> >
> >     default:
> > }
> >
> > This isn't working now. I think this is very useful (I've already needed
> > it).
>
> It's a good idea.
>
> > In this case the compiler should compare references, not classes (does
it
> > already do this when comparing classinfoes with op==?).
>
> === comparse references, == calls Object.eq().

Then what does Object.eq() for classinfos?

> > > 1) out parameters with initializers.
> > >
> > > Out parameters are initialized by the callee. So we should be able to
> > > override the default initializer as we do with any other variable, for
> > > example:
> > > void func(out int a = 5) { a++; }
> > >
> > > I've never needed it since now, but it should be added for
consistency.
> (I
> > > don't know if this has been proposed before...)
> >
> > You're right, it's a lapse in consistency. I'd be a little worried about
> it,
> > though, as C++ programmers will think it means a default parameter.
> >
> > > 2) switching through classinfoes
> > >
> > > switch(a.classinfo)
> > > {
> > >     case A.classinfo:
> > >     do something;
> > >     break;
> > >
> > >     case B.classinfo:
> > >     do something else;
> > >     break;
> > >
> > >     default:
> > > }
> > >
> > > This isn't working now. I think this is very useful (I've already
needed
> > > it).
> >
> > It's a good idea.
> >
> > > In this case the compiler should compare references, not classes (does
> it
> > > already do this when comparing classinfoes with op==?).
> >
> > === comparse references, == calls Object.eq().
>
> Then what does Object.eq() for classinfos?

I guess it compare references! =)
Doesn't it, Walter?

"Sandor Hojtsy" <hojtsy@index.hu> wrote in message news:akvas9$2vak$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > === comparse references, == calls Object.eq().
> Then what does Object.eq() for classinfos?

I don't understand the question.

Quoting from object.d

class Object
{
int cmp(Object o)
{
    return (int)(void*)this - (int)(void*)o;
}

int eq(Object o)
{
    return this === o;
}
// something else
}

I don't understand what Object.cmp(Object) is useful for...
I would prefer the compiler to emit an error like "No cmp() for class ...",
because if I try to do that comparison I'm probably making a mistake.

"Dario" <supdar@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:al7m9o$4vj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Quoting from object.d
>
> class Object
> {
> int cmp(Object o)
> {
>     return (int)(void*)this - (int)(void*)o;
> }
>
> int eq(Object o)
> {
>     return this === o;
> }
> // something else
> }
>
> I don't understand what Object.cmp(Object) is useful for...
> I would prefer the compiler to emit an error like "No cmp() for class
...",
> because if I try to do that comparison I'm probably making a mistake.

What it does is a sort based on its position in memory. But I think you're right.