• Joe Battelle (48/48) Aug 23 2002 The code below shows some oddities with Delegates and the Foo.bar() inst...
• Walter (1/1) Aug 24 2002 Thanks for the reports, I'll check into them.

Joe Battelle <Joe_member pathlink.com> writes:

The code below shows some oddities with Delegates and the Foo.bar() instance
method invocation syntax and &Foo.bar delegate syntax.

1) You can't use A.bar() inside of A.foo() as an alternative to this.  It may be
by design, but I think it's weird.
2) You can use D.bar() inside of A.foo() when A implements D (interface), only
you get a link time error, with the linker looking for a non abstract D.bar.  I
don't think D.bar() make sense--either way it's a compiler error.
3) You can create a delegate inside of a method using &A.foo instead of
&this.foo.  The result is, of course, that the A override is lost when the
delegate is used: it behaves just like the &this.foo delegate.  I think the
compiler should not allow this &A.foo syntax for delegates defined inside of
methods--or even better, add class overrides to the delegate functionality.  
4) You can use &D.foo inside of A.pfoo() when A implements D (interface), and
pfoo returns a delegate to method foo on this.  I think this is weird in light
of (2) not being allowed.
------------------
import c.stdio;

alias void delegate() DG;

interface D { abstract void foo(); }

class A : D {

void foo() { printf("A"); }

//you can use this or D(!) but not A here
DG pfoo() { return &D.foo; }

void doo() {

version(wontcompile) {
//di.d(11): 'this' is required, but A is not a base class of A
A.foo();
}

version(wontlink) {
//Error 42: Symbol Undefined _Ddi_D_foo_FZv
D.foo(); //this shouldn't get past the compiler but it does
//compiler thinks D is a base class of A so it allows it, but
//then references a non abstract method of D!
}

}

}

class B : A {
void foo() { printf("B"); }
DG pfoo() { return &A.foo; }
}

int main(char[][] argv)
{

A a = new A;
a.doo();

B b = new B;
b.pfoo()(); //B (the A override in pfoo is lost by the delegate)

return 0;
}

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

Thanks for the reports, I'll check into them.