• 12345swordy (7/7) Oct 08 2020 Reason being that it doesn't support binary operators nor unary
• H. S. Teoh (7/14) Oct 08 2020 [...]
• 12345swordy (7/20) Oct 08 2020 int _x;
• H. S. Teoh (8/29) Oct 08 2020 Operator overloading is only supported by the opXxx member functions.
• 12345swordy (3/25) Oct 08 2020 It turns out that it has nothing to do with the CTFE. It simply a
• H. S. Teoh (13/29) Oct 08 2020 [...]
• Ahmet Sait (2/2) Oct 09 2020 https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8006

12345swordy <alexanderheistermann gmail.com> writes:

Reason being that it doesn't support binary operators nor unary 
operators, by using the two functions. It a bad idea to allow 
ctfe to implement them implicitly as that could lead to 
unintentional design by the programmer.


It would be better to implement properties properly and to 
deprecate the  properties attribute.

-Alex

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:

On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 03:21:57PM +0000, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 Reason being that it doesn't support binary operators nor unary
 operators, by using the two functions. It a bad idea to allow ctfe to
 implement them implicitly as that could lead to unintentional design
 by the programmer.
 
 It would be better to implement properties properly and to deprecate
 the  properties attribute.

[...]

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say. Could
you post some code that illustrates the problem?


T

-- 
He who does not appreciate the beauty of language is not worthy to bemoan its
flaws.

12345swordy <alexanderheistermann gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 8 October 2020 at 16:11:02 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 03:21:57PM +0000, 12345swordy via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:
 Reason being that it doesn't support binary operators nor 
 unary operators, by using the two functions. It a bad idea to 
 allow ctfe to implement them implicitly as that could lead to 
 unintentional design by the programmer.
 
 It would be better to implement properties properly and to 
 deprecate the  properties attribute.

 [...]

 I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say. 
 Could you post some code that illustrates the problem?


 T

int _x;
public
int x () { return _x; }
int x (int x) { this._x = x; }

x += 2; // you can't do this.
x++ //nor this.

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:

On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 04:47:07PM +0000, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Thursday, 8 October 2020 at 16:11:02 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 03:21:57PM +0000, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d
 wrote:
 Reason being that it doesn't support binary operators nor unary
 operators, by using the two functions. It a bad idea to allow ctfe
 to implement them implicitly as that could lead to unintentional
 design by the programmer.
 
 It would be better to implement properties properly and to
 deprecate the  properties attribute.

 [...]
 
 I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say.
 Could you post some code that illustrates the problem?


[...]
 int _x;
 public
 int x () { return _x; }
 int x (int x) { this._x = x; }
 
 x += 2; // you can't do this.
 x++ //nor this.

Operator overloading is only supported by the opXxx member functions.
This is by design.  But I don't understand what this has to do with
CTFE?


T

-- 
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will
eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.  Now, thanks to the
Internet, we know this is not true. -- Robert Wilensk

12345swordy <alexanderheistermann gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 8 October 2020 at 19:45:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 04:47:07PM +0000, 12345swordy via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Thursday, 8 October 2020 at 16:11:02 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 03:21:57PM +0000, 12345swordy via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:
 [...]

 [...]
 
 I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to 
 say. Could you post some code that illustrates the problem?


 [...]
 int _x;
 public
 int x () { return _x; }
 int x (int x) { this._x = x; }
 
 x += 2; // you can't do this.
 x++ //nor this.

 Operator overloading is only supported by the opXxx member 
 functions. This is by design.  But I don't understand what this 
 has to do with CTFE?


 T

It turns out that it has nothing to do with the CTFE. It simply a 
limitation that  propertiy is supposed to address.

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:

On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 07:47:49PM +0000, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 On Thursday, 8 October 2020 at 19:45:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 04:47:07PM +0000, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d
 wrote:


[...]
 int _x;
 public
 int x () { return _x; }
 int x (int x) { this._x = x; }
 
 x += 2; // you can't do this.
 x++ //nor this.

 
 Operator overloading is only supported by the opXxx member
 functions.  This is by design.  But I don't understand what this has
 to do with CTFE?


[...]
 It turns out that it has nothing to do with the CTFE. It simply a
 limitation that  propertiy is supposed to address.

Ah, now I understand.

Yeah,  property is poorly-implemented, and generally a mess beyond the
most rudimentary of use cases. I usually don't bother with it except
where I absolutely have to.

Though if you really care about it, filing an enhancement request might
be a way of documenting this particular use case, in case we ever
revisit this feature again.


T

-- 
Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

Ahmet Sait <nightmarex1337 hotmail.com> writes:

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8006

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15231