Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ...
by frutiger on Thursday May 28, 2020 @08:55AM
(#23336654)
Even C++ lets you store the address of the member function and lets you invoke it with an instance later.
Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ...
by Huperniketes on Thursday May 28, 2020 @08:59PM
(#23345119)
> Even C++ lets you store the address of the member function and lets you invoke it with an instance later.
Not for virtual member functions (not that I've been able to find). C++ is geared towards generating optimal executables. Since the type of the object is known at compile-time, the particular function used for that type is known, and the compiler will generate code that applies for it.
This is why C++ uses mangled names: to discriminate between identically named functions of different types and signatures.
Which ones?
>However, it is much more rare to be able to store B in a variable and supply it "later". Often, you must store A.B:
How is it rare? Smalltalk doesn't require you to specify the receiver when storing a symbol. Neither does Objective-C (selector). Neither does Ruby. Nor Java.
Which commonly used languages require one to have the receiver tied to the method when memoized? C++ is the only one I'm aware of. So it might be rare to do it in C++, but not in OOP generally.