• Dario (12/12) Aug 02 2002 When you use polymorphic classes, and you cast one type to another (in o...
• Russell Lewis (9/24) Aug 02 2002 The issue, of course, is operator precedence. The . operator has a
• Walter (3/9) Aug 02 2002 Yes, that is correct .
• Pavel Minayev (4/7) Aug 02 2002 No, it isn't. C does it the same way! (only the cast keyword is missing)...
• anderson (6/18) Aug 03 2002 ...but then changing a classed data member would look like this,

"Dario" <supdar yahoo.com> writes:

When you use polymorphic classes, and you cast one type to another (in order
to access a data-member), you use the following sintax:
int dataMember2 = ( cast(DerivedClass) class_reference ).dataMember;

Why the more intuitive sintax doesn't work?
int dataMember2 = cast(DerivedClass)(class_reference).dataMember;

It seems to me that class_reference is interpreted as a type (dmd alpha
0.35).
I also fear that it has a different meaning, i.e.
int dataMember2 = cast(DerivedClass)(class_reference.dataMember);
which is a nonsense!

IMO, the latter sintax is better, since it has less nested brackets and so
it's more readable. Does anyone agree?

Russell Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:

Dario wrote:
 When you use polymorphic classes, and you cast one type to another (in order
 to access a data-member), you use the following sintax:
 int dataMember2 = ( cast(DerivedClass) class_reference ).dataMember;
 
 Why the more intuitive sintax doesn't work?
 int dataMember2 = cast(DerivedClass)(class_reference).dataMember;
 
 It seems to me that class_reference is interpreted as a type (dmd alpha
 0.35).
 I also fear that it has a different meaning, i.e.
 int dataMember2 = cast(DerivedClass)(class_reference.dataMember);
 which is a nonsense!
 
 IMO, the latter sintax is better, since it has less nested brackets and so
 it's more readable. Does anyone agree?

The issue, of course, is operator precedence.  The . operator has a 
higher precedence than does cast.

Frankly, I would have preferred it the other way around - that cast 
would have higher precedence.  However, it was not that way in C/C++, 
and one of Walter's stated goals is to make the C++ => D transition as 
easy as is practical.  Thus, he has consistently refused to change the 
precedence tables (even when there was a very good case for it) or to 
change the meaning of keywords.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Russell Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> wrote in message
news:3D4AEDF1.6070605 deming-os.org...
 Frankly, I would have preferred it the other way around - that cast
 would have higher precedence.  However, it was not that way in C/C++,
 and one of Walter's stated goals is to make the C++ => D transition as
 easy as is practical.  Thus, he has consistently refused to change the
 precedence tables (even when there was a very good case for it) or to
 change the meaning of keywords.

Yes, that is correct <g>.

Pavel Minayev <evilone omen.ru> writes:

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 20:26:00 +0200 "Dario" <supdar yahoo.com> wrote:

 I also fear that it has a different meaning, i.e.
 int dataMember2 = cast(DerivedClass)(class_reference.dataMember);
 which is a nonsense!

No, it isn't. C does it the same way! (only the cast keyword is missing).
I guess it was done so to avoid confusion of C/C++ programmers.
 

"anderson" <anderson firestar.com.au> writes:

...but then changing a classed data member would look like this,

classA A = cast(classX) (class.classBObject());

Which is just pushing the problem to another area, not getting rid of it.

"Dario" <supdar yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aieij7$2q4n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 When you use polymorphic classes, and you cast one type to another (in

order
 to access a data-member), you use the following sintax:
 int dataMember2 = ( cast(DerivedClass) class_reference ).dataMember;

 Why the more intuitive sintax doesn't work?
 int dataMember2 = cast(DerivedClass)(class_reference).dataMember;

 It seems to me that class_reference is interpreted as a type (dmd alpha
 0.35).
 I also fear that it has a different meaning, i.e.
 int dataMember2 = cast(DerivedClass)(class_reference.dataMember);
 which is a nonsense!

 IMO, the latter sintax is better, since it has less nested brackets and so
 it's more readable. Does anyone agree?