www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Uniform call syntax for operator overloads

reply Tomek =?UTF-8?B?U293acWEc2tp?= <just ask.me> writes:
This doesn't work:

int opIndex(int[][] m, uint i, uint j) { return m[i][j]; }

unittest {
    auto m = [[9,8], [2,3]];
    auto a = m[0,1];
}

It's so by design or by bug?


Tomek

p.s. Where on D page is uniform call syntax documented? Couldn't find it in 
functions section.
Jul 25 2010
parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Tomek S.:


 This doesn't work:
 int opIndex(int[][] m, uint i, uint j) { return m[i][j]; }


That's cute, but in D overloaded operator can be defined inside
structs/classes/unions only (this is different from C++).

Bye,
bearophile
Jul 25 2010
parent reply Tomek =?UTF-8?B?U293acWEc2tp?= <just ask.me> writes:
bearophile wrote:


 Tomek S.:
 

 This doesn't work:
 int opIndex(int[][] m, uint i, uint j) { return m[i][j]; }


 
 That's cute, but in D overloaded operator can be defined inside
 structs/classes/unions only (this is different from C++).


Yeah, I know, but why? What bad would happen if operators could be written 
down with functions-as-members syntax?


Tomek
Jul 25 2010
parent Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Tomek Sowiński wrote:

 bearophile wrote:
 

 Tomek S.:


 This doesn't work:
 int opIndex(int[][] m, uint i, uint j) { return m[i][j]; }


 That's cute, but in D overloaded operator can be defined inside
 structs/classes/unions only (this is different from C++).


 
 Yeah, I know, but why? What bad would happen if operators could be written 
 down with functions-as-members syntax?
 
 
 Tomek


Universal Call Syntax is actually just a really old bug in method lookup
for arrays that was never fixed on account of being useful.

That it doesn't work for operators is hardly surprising.
Jul 27 2010