• Mik Mifflin (17/17) Feb 19 2004 The following program doesn't compile:
• Andrew (11/16) Feb 19 2004 |
• davepermen (4/20) Feb 19 2004 you should be able to do that. done similar things yet..
• Andrew (7/9) Feb 20 2004 IC. Could you please explain some of the advantages and disadvantages of...
• Mik Mifflin (5/20) Feb 20 2004 I don't think the point is if anyone actually has a use for it, the poin...
• Andrew (4/24) Feb 20 2004 I completely understand that Mik. I simply wanted to expand my knowledge...
• Mik Mifflin (4/23) Feb 19 2004 I can in this instance, as I return a caller object.
• Manfred Nowak (5/6) Feb 19 2004 [...]
• Mik Mifflin (5/24) Feb 19 2004 A temporary workaround is '(c(x)(y))', with the extra parentheses. The
• Manfred Nowak (5/7) Feb 19 2004 This is a cool thing. I am searching for something like that in the thre...

Mik Mifflin <mik42 NOadelphiaSPAM.net> writes:

The following program doesn't compile:
class caller {
   caller opCall (out int i) {
      i = 10;
      return this;
   }
}

void main (char[][] args) {
   caller c = new caller;
   int x,y;
   c(x)(y);
}

It gives this error:
opcall.d(11): declaration main.x is already defined

Compiler bug?  Or did I do something stupid?

-- 
 - Mik Mifflin

Andrew <Andrew_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <c133a2$1cun$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Mik Mifflin says...

void main (char[][] args) {
   caller c = new caller;
   int x,y;
   c(x)(y);    <<----:
}                    |

|
HERE

I don't think you can chain a function or opCall in that manner...
The following works fine...

void main (char[][] args) {
caller c = new caller;
int x,y;
c(x);
c(y);
}

"davepermen" <davepermen hotmail.com> writes:

you should be able to do that. done similar things yet..

i'll have a closer look... uhm.. tomorrow..

"Andrew" <Andrew_member pathlink.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c13739$1jlt$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <c133a2$1cun$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Mik Mifflin says...

void main (char[][] args) {
   caller c = new caller;
   int x,y;
   c(x)(y);    <<----:
}                    |

 |
 HERE

 I don't think you can chain a function or opCall in that manner...
 The following works fine...

 void main (char[][] args) {
 caller c = new caller;
 int x,y;
 c(x);
 c(y);
 }

Andrew <Andrew_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <c138s9$1n7c$1 digitaldaemon.com>, davepermen says...
you should be able to do that. done similar things yet..

i'll have a closer look... uhm.. tomorrow..

IC. Could you please explain some of the advantages and disadvantages of doing
things this way? 

Other than being able to simultaneously assign a value to multiple variables,
what are some other uses for this feature?

Thanks,
Andrew

Mik Mifflin <mik42 NOadelphiaSPAM.net> writes:

Andrew wrote:

 In article <c138s9$1n7c$1 digitaldaemon.com>, davepermen says...
you should be able to do that. done similar things yet..

i'll have a closer look... uhm.. tomorrow..

 
 IC. Could you please explain some of the advantages and disadvantages of
 doing things this way?
 
 Other than being able to simultaneously assign a value to multiple
 variables, what are some other uses for this feature?
 
 Thanks,
 Andrew

I don't think the point is if anyone actually has a use for it, the point is
that it should work, and does not.

-- 
 - Mik Mifflin

Andrew <Andrew_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <c15bp3$2k3l$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Mik Mifflin says...
Andrew wrote:

 In article <c138s9$1n7c$1 digitaldaemon.com>, davepermen says...
you should be able to do that. done similar things yet..

i'll have a closer look... uhm.. tomorrow..

 
 IC. Could you please explain some of the advantages and disadvantages of
 doing things this way?
 
 Other than being able to simultaneously assign a value to multiple
 variables, what are some other uses for this feature?
 
 Thanks,
 Andrew

I don't think the point is if anyone actually has a use for it, the point is
that it should work, and does not.

-- 
 - Mik Mifflin

I completely understand that Mik. I simply wanted to expand my knowledge. Thanks
anyhow.

Andrew

Mik Mifflin <mik42 NOadelphiaSPAM.net> writes:

Andrew wrote:

 In article <c133a2$1cun$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Mik Mifflin says...
 
void main (char[][] args) {
   caller c = new caller;
   int x,y;
   c(x)(y);    <<----:
}                    |

 |
 HERE
 
 I don't think you can chain a function or opCall in that manner...
 The following works fine...
 
 void main (char[][] args) {
 caller c = new caller;
 int x,y;
 c(x);
 c(y);
 }

I can in this instance, as I return a caller object.

-- 
 - Mik Mifflin

Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:

Andrew wrote:

[...]
 The following works fine...

[...]

However, a very misleading error message.

So long.

Mik Mifflin <mik42 NOadelphiaSPAM.net> writes:

Mik Mifflin wrote:

 The following program doesn't compile:
 class caller {
    caller opCall (out int i) {
       i = 10;
       return this;
    }
 }
 
 void main (char[][] args) {
    caller c = new caller;
    int x,y;
    c(x)(y);
 }
 
 It gives this error:
 opcall.d(11): declaration main.x is already defined
 
 Compiler bug?  Or did I do something stupid?
 

A temporary workaround is '(c(x)(y))', with the extra parentheses.  The
error goes away and it works as expected..

-- 
 - Mik Mifflin

Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:

Mik Mifflin wrote:

 A temporary workaround is '(c(x)(y))', with the extra parentheses.  The
 error goes away and it works as expected..

This is a cool thing. I am searching for something like that in the thread
`[experts] opComma'.

`cast(void) c(x)(y)' also works.

So long.