• Thomas Kuehne (14/14) Jun 07 2004 // the classes:
• The Dr ... who? (9/21) Jun 13 2004 This is not valid. The semantics of the ternary operator stipulate that ...

"Thomas Kuehne" <thomas-ThisIsSpam kuehne.cn> writes:

// the classes:
private class Master{}
private class Foo : Master{}
private class Bar : Master{}

public static int main(char[][] args){

 bit isBar;
 bit isFoo;

 // valid and compiles:
 Master a = (isBar) ? (new Bar()) : (new Master());
 Master b = (isFoo) ? (new Foo()) : (new Master());

 // valid, but fails to compile:
 Master c = (isBar) ? (new Bar()) : (new Foo());

 return 0;
}

"The Dr ... who?" <thedr who.com> writes:

"Thomas Kuehne" <thomas-ThisIsSpam kuehne.cn> wrote in message
news:ca1m8u$2ogp$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 // the classes:
 private class Master{}
 private class Foo : Master{}
 private class Bar : Master{}

 public static int main(char[][] args){

  bit isBar;
  bit isFoo;

  // valid and compiles:
  Master a = (isBar) ? (new Bar()) : (new Master());
  Master b = (isFoo) ? (new Foo()) : (new Master());

  // valid, but fails to compile:
  Master c = (isBar) ? (new Bar()) : (new Foo());

This is not valid. The semantics of the ternary operator stipulate that the
expression as a whole has the type of the second sub-expression. Hence, your
statement is exactly equivalent to

    Master c = (isBar) ? cast(Bar)(new Bar()) : (new Foo());

which is obviously not valid.

The fix is obvious

    Master c = (isBar) ? cast(Master)(new Bar()) : (new Foo());