digitalmars.D - UFCS in the presence of alias this
- Jens Mueller (33/33) Apr 19 2012 Hi,
- Timon Gehr (3/36) Apr 19 2012 This is a bug. You can report it to:
- Jens Mueller (5/52) Apr 19 2012 It's submitted.
- kenji hara (5/57) Apr 19 2012 Posted compiler fix:
- Jens Mueller (3/63) Apr 19 2012 Fabulous. Thanks a lot.
- Philippe Sigaud (5/9) Apr 19 2012 (something like, one hour passes)
- Timon Gehr (2/11) Apr 19 2012
- kenji hara (3/12) Apr 19 2012 Thanks.
Hi, using UFCS with alias this behaves strange. Consider struct Foo { int _member; alias _member this; } int foo(Foo f) { return f._member; } int foo(int i) { return i; } unittest { Foo f; f.foo(); // which function will be called? Isn't it ambiguous? } Due to the alias this the function foo(int i) will be called. Is this the indented behavior? Practically, I want UFCS to just perform a syntactic rewrite from f.foo() to foo(f). When using alias this you have to define the second function. Providing only the first one results in a compile error. If you remove the alias this things work as expected (first one needs to be defined). I stumbled upon this problem when trying to define additional functions for a Tuple. Tuple has "alias field this" for falling back on TypeTuple's opIndex. Unfortunately, alias Tuple!(int) Bar; int bar(typeof(Bar.field) b) { return 1; } unittest { Bar b; b.bar(); } does not work. Jens
Apr 19 2012
On 04/19/2012 11:28 AM, Jens Mueller wrote:Hi, using UFCS with alias this behaves strange. Consider struct Foo { int _member; alias _member this; } int foo(Foo f) { return f._member; } int foo(int i) { return i; } unittest { Foo f; f.foo(); // which function will be called? Isn't it ambiguous? } Due to the alias this the function foo(int i) will be called. Is this the indented behavior? Practically, I want UFCS to just perform a syntactic rewrite from f.foo() to foo(f). When using alias this you have to define the second function. Providing only the first one results in a compile error. If you remove the alias this things work as expected (first one needs to be defined). I stumbled upon this problem when trying to define additional functions for a Tuple. Tuple has "alias field this" for falling back on TypeTuple's opIndex. Unfortunately, alias Tuple!(int) Bar; int bar(typeof(Bar.field) b) { return 1; } unittest { Bar b; b.bar(); } does not work. JensThis is a bug. You can report it to: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/
Apr 19 2012
Timon Gehr wrote:On 04/19/2012 11:28 AM, Jens Mueller wrote:It's submitted. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7943 Thanks for your reply. JensHi, using UFCS with alias this behaves strange. Consider struct Foo { int _member; alias _member this; } int foo(Foo f) { return f._member; } int foo(int i) { return i; } unittest { Foo f; f.foo(); // which function will be called? Isn't it ambiguous? } Due to the alias this the function foo(int i) will be called. Is this the indented behavior? Practically, I want UFCS to just perform a syntactic rewrite from f.foo() to foo(f). When using alias this you have to define the second function. Providing only the first one results in a compile error. If you remove the alias this things work as expected (first one needs to be defined). I stumbled upon this problem when trying to define additional functions for a Tuple. Tuple has "alias field this" for falling back on TypeTuple's opIndex. Unfortunately, alias Tuple!(int) Bar; int bar(typeof(Bar.field) b) { return 1; } unittest { Bar b; b.bar(); } does not work. JensThis is a bug. You can report it to: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/
Apr 19 2012
2012年4月19日20:48 Jens Mueller <jens.k.mueller gmx.de>:Timon Gehr wrote:Posted compiler fix: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/890 Thanks for your reporting, Jens! Kenji HaraOn 04/19/2012 11:28 AM, Jens Mueller wrote:It's submitted. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7943 Thanks for your reply. JensHi, using UFCS with alias this behaves strange. Consider struct Foo { int _member; alias _member this; } int foo(Foo f) { return f._member; } int foo(int i) { return i; } unittest { Foo f; f.foo(); // which function will be called? Isn't it ambiguous? } Due to the alias this the function foo(int i) will be called. Is this the indented behavior? Practically, I want UFCS to just perform a syntactic rewrite from f.foo() to foo(f). When using alias this you have to define the second function. Providing only the first one results in a compile error. If you remove the alias this things work as expected (first one needs to be defined). I stumbled upon this problem when trying to define additional functions for a Tuple. Tuple has "alias field this" for falling back on TypeTuple's opIndex. Unfortunately, alias Tuple!(int) Bar; int bar(typeof(Bar.field) b) { return 1; } unittest { Bar b; b.bar(); } does not work. JensThis is a bug. You can report it to: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/
Apr 19 2012
kenji hara wrote:2012年4月19日20:48 Jens Mueller <jens.k.mueller gmx.de>:Fabulous. Thanks a lot. JensTimon Gehr wrote:Posted compiler fix: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/890 Thanks for your reporting, Jens!On 04/19/2012 11:28 AM, Jens Mueller wrote:It's submitted. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7943 Thanks for your reply. JensHi, using UFCS with alias this behaves strange. Consider struct Foo { int _member; alias _member this; } int foo(Foo f) { return f._member; } int foo(int i) { return i; } unittest { Foo f; f.foo(); // which function will be called? Isn't it ambiguous? } Due to the alias this the function foo(int i) will be called. Is this the indented behavior? Practically, I want UFCS to just perform a syntactic rewrite from f.foo() to foo(f). When using alias this you have to define the second function. Providing only the first one results in a compile error. If you remove the alias this things work as expected (first one needs to be defined). I stumbled upon this problem when trying to define additional functions for a Tuple. Tuple has "alias field this" for falling back on TypeTuple's opIndex. Unfortunately, alias Tuple!(int) Bar; int bar(typeof(Bar.field) b) { return 1; } unittest { Bar b; b.bar(); } does not work. JensThis is a bug. You can report it to: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/
Apr 19 2012
Jens:(something like, one hour passes) Kenji:It's submitted. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7943Posted compiler fix: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/890Man, you're wonderful Kenji. You never cease to amaze me. Your ability to correct bugs is borderline incredible.
Apr 19 2012
On 04/19/2012 05:56 PM, Philippe Sigaud wrote:Jens:I counted 26 minutes.(something like, one hour passes)It's submitted. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7943Kenji:Posted compiler fix: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/890Man, you're wonderful Kenji. You never cease to amaze me. Your ability to correct bugs is borderline incredible.
Apr 19 2012
2012年4月20日0:56 Philippe Sigaud <philippe.sigaud gmail.com>:Jens:Thanks. Kenji Hara(something like, one hour passes) Kenji:It's submitted. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7943Posted compiler fix: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/890Man, you're wonderful Kenji. You never cease to amaze me. Your ability to correct bugs is borderline incredible.
Apr 19 2012