• Jeroen van Bemmel (3/3) Jun 07 2004 Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object,
• Ant (4/8) Jun 07 2004 obviously,
• J C Calvarese (7/20) Jun 07 2004 It has been mentioned before. It looks like a fine suggestion to me, but...
• Arcane Jill (6/10) Jun 08 2004 That to me is the ultimate in simplicity, and it might even call a const...
• Norbert Nemec (5/9) Jun 09 2004 The problem of this is that it looks like a function call that takes a t...

"Jeroen van Bemmel" <someone somewhere.com> writes:

Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object, 
wouldn't it make sense to allow:

x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value?

Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 07:58:01 +0200, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:

 Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object, 
 wouldn't it make sense to allow:
 
 x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value?

obviously,
but this was discussed before and rejected.

Ant

J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:

Ant wrote:
 On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 07:58:01 +0200, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
 
 
Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object, 
wouldn't it make sense to allow:

x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value?

 
 
 obviously,
 but this was discussed before and rejected.
 
 Ant

It has been mentioned before. It looks like a fine suggestion to me, but 
I don't care enough about it to fight for it. I like the cast(int) x 
syntax. I think that's good enough.

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

Arcane Jill <Arcane_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <ca3kiu$2r17$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Jeroen van Bemmel says...
Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object, 
wouldn't it make sense to allow:

x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value?

Sure. Another nice one is (one of the many ways that) C++ does it:

        int(x)

That to me is the ultimate in simplicity, and it might even call a constructor
in the case of a class. However, I, too, like Walter's approach, so I'm happy to
leave things as they are.

Jill

Norbert Nemec <Norbert.Nemec gmx.de> writes:

Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:

 Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object,
 wouldn't it make sense to allow:
 
 x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value?

The problem of this is that it looks like a function call that takes a type
as argument. As long as types cannot be handled like that in D in general,
I think it is a good idea to leave the cast syntax as it is without trying
to make it look similar to something that is fundamentally different.