• John Reimer (25/25) Jun 09 2005 The code (much reduced from original):
• Regan Heath (4/23) Jun 09 2005 Adding 'static' to create seems to fix it. eg. "static Entry* create()" ...
• John Reimer (3/8) Jun 09 2005 Thanks. I'm curious to know why this changes in the recent version.
• Sean Kelly (5/10) Jun 09 2005 The error message stinks, but you should not be able to call a nonstatic...
• John Reimer (5/23) Jun 09 2005 Thanks. That makes sense. I was wondering if structs had an implicit
• Walter (4/6) Jun 14 2005 No. You'd just get passed the wrong 'this'. If you accessed a member, a ...
• Walter (4/11) Jun 14 2005 Because it now checks for that particular mistake. Before, it would pass...
• Uwe Salomon (3/23) Jun 09 2005 Ciao

John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:

The code (much reduced from original):





















Produces this error message (courtesy of dmd 0.126 on linux):

test.d(16): this for create needs to be type Entry not type test.Container

Can anybody decipher that message?  That's verbatum!  I'm not sure why 
it's not working either.  This compiled on previous versions.

-JJR

"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 04:55:25 -0700, John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> wrote:




















Adding 'static' to create seems to fix it. eg. "static Entry* create()"  
etc.

Regan

John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:

Regan Heath wrote:
 
 Adding 'static' to create seems to fix it. eg. "static Entry* create()"  
 etc.
 
 Regan

Thanks.  I'm curious to know why this changes in the recent version.

-JJR

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

In article <d8a3e5$23gj$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
Regan Heath wrote:
 
 Adding 'static' to create seems to fix it. eg. "static Entry* create()"  
 etc.

Thanks.  I'm curious to know why this changes in the recent version.

The error message stinks, but you should not be able to call a nonstatic method
on  a type unless it's through an instance of that type.  I'm surprised that
code ever worked.


Sean

John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:

Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <d8a3e5$23gj$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
 
Regan Heath wrote:

Adding 'static' to create seems to fix it. eg. "static Entry* create()"  
etc.

Thanks.  I'm curious to know why this changes in the recent version.

 
 
 The error message stinks, but you should not be able to call a nonstatic method
 on  a type unless it's through an instance of that type.  I'm surprised that
 code ever worked.
 
 
 Sean
 
 

Thanks. That makes sense.  I was wondering if structs had an implicit 
static attribute on there methods in past versions.  I haven't used 
structs much.  With classes, I can see the necessity of using static.

-JJR

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"John Reimer" <brk_6502 yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d8a5pn$25s9$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Thanks. That makes sense.  I was wondering if structs had an implicit
 static attribute on there methods in past versions.

No. You'd just get passed the wrong 'this'. If you accessed a member, a mess
would happen.

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"John Reimer" <brk_6502 yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d8a3e5$23gj$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Regan Heath wrote:
 Adding 'static' to create seems to fix it. eg. "static Entry* create()"
 etc.

 Regan

 Thanks.  I'm curious to know why this changes in the recent version.

Because it now checks for that particular mistake. Before, it would pass the
wrong 'this' pointer to Entry.create().

"Uwe Salomon" <post uwesalomon.de> writes:

 The code (much reduced from original):






Insert a "static" here.

















Ciao
uwe