digitalmars.D - This doesn't make sense regarding alias this a static function
- 12345swordy (21/21) May 16 2021 ```struct TIntStatic
- Steven Schveighoffer (4/24) May 16 2021 That’s considered a constructor. And there’s no member to accept
- 12345swordy (8/36) May 16 2021 You mean that this shouldn't work?
- Steven Schveighoffer (14/49) May 16 2021 Honestly, I'm not sure. `alias this` usually maps to a `this`, i.e. an
- 12345swordy (7/61) May 16 2021 It part of the test suit that the user jinshill has created.
- Steven Schveighoffer (5/10) May 16 2021 People can write tests that confirm invalid behavior. I wouldn't take
```struct TIntStatic { static int mX; static property int x() { return mX; } static property void x(int v) { mX = v; } alias x this; } ``` It doesn't like the following code ``` alias t = TIntStatic; t(5); ``` Yet is perfectly fine with this ``` alias t = TIntStatic; t = 5; ``` What is with the inconsistency? If you allow t = 5 then surely you must allow t(5) as part of alias this a function. -Alex
May 16 2021
On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 15:45:48 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:```struct TIntStatic { static int mX; static property int x() { return mX; } static property void x(int v) { mX = v; } alias x this; } ``` It doesn't like the following code ``` alias t = TIntStatic; t(5); ``` Yet is perfectly fine with this ``` alias t = TIntStatic; t = 5; ``` What is with the inconsistency? If you allow t = 5 then surely you must allow t(5) as part of alias this a function.That’s considered a constructor. And there’s no member to accept the 5. -Steve
May 16 2021
On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 16:38:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 15:45:48 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:You mean that this shouldn't work? ``` alias t = TIntStatic; t = 5; ``` -Alex```struct TIntStatic { static int mX; static property int x() { return mX; } static property void x(int v) { mX = v; } alias x this; } ``` It doesn't like the following code ``` alias t = TIntStatic; t(5); ``` Yet is perfectly fine with this ``` alias t = TIntStatic; t = 5; ``` What is with the inconsistency? If you allow t = 5 then surely you must allow t(5) as part of alias this a function.That’s considered a constructor. And there’s no member to accept the 5. -Steve
May 16 2021
On 5/16/21 12:48 PM, 12345swordy wrote:On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 16:38:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:Honestly, I'm not sure. `alias this` usually maps to a `this`, i.e. an instance, not the type. I'm sure it's some quirk in how the compiler treats alias this, but I wouldn't have expected it to work. But the reason the constructor form doesn't work is straightforward -- the constructor t() exists. Therefore, it matches first, not using the alias this, and it's just a matter of parameter count mismatch that fails (this is well-trodden ground). BTW, is there a reason you are using `alias t` instead of the real type? If: ```d TIntStatic = 5; ``` doesn't work, but yours does, then that seems like a bug to me. -SteveOn Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 15:45:48 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:You mean that this shouldn't work? ``` alias t = TIntStatic; t = 5; ``````struct TIntStatic { static int mX; static property int x() { return mX; } static property void x(int v) { mX = v; } alias x this; } ``` It doesn't like the following code ``` alias t = TIntStatic; t(5); ``` Yet is perfectly fine with this ``` alias t = TIntStatic; t = 5; ``` What is with the inconsistency? If you allow t = 5 then surely you must allow t(5) as part of alias this a function.That’s considered a constructor. And there’s no member to accept the 5.
May 16 2021
On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 17:11:23 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:On 5/16/21 12:48 PM, 12345swordy wrote:It part of the test suit that the user jinshill has created. ```d TIntStatic = 5 ``` Works fine. It is just that I am puzzled by this weird edge case.On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 16:38:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:Honestly, I'm not sure. `alias this` usually maps to a `this`, i.e. an instance, not the type. I'm sure it's some quirk in how the compiler treats alias this, but I wouldn't have expected it to work. But the reason the constructor form doesn't work is straightforward -- the constructor t() exists. Therefore, it matches first, not using the alias this, and it's just a matter of parameter count mismatch that fails (this is well-trodden ground). BTW, is there a reason you are using `alias t` instead of the real type? If: ```d TIntStatic = 5; ``` doesn't work, but yours does, then that seems like a bug to me. -SteveOn Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 15:45:48 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:You mean that this shouldn't work? ``` alias t = TIntStatic; t = 5; ``````struct TIntStatic { static int mX; static property int x() { return mX; } static property void x(int v) { mX = v; } alias x this; } ``` It doesn't like the following code ``` alias t = TIntStatic; t(5); ``` Yet is perfectly fine with this ``` alias t = TIntStatic; t = 5; ``` What is with the inconsistency? If you allow t = 5 then surely you must allow t(5) as part of alias this a function.That’s considered a constructor. And there’s no member to accept the 5.
May 16 2021
On 5/16/21 1:19 PM, 12345swordy wrote:It part of the test suit that the user jinshill has created. ```d TIntStatic = 5 ``` Works fine. It is just that I am puzzled by this weird edge case.People can write tests that confirm invalid behavior. I wouldn't take the presence of a test as definitive confirmation that the feature should exist. Again, though, I'm not sure if it should. -Steve
May 16 2021