• Deewiant (12/12) Oct 14 2005 DMD 0.135, Windows XP Service Pack 2.
• John C (9/20) Oct 15 2005 I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think non-static nested classes can have
• =?utf-8?B?RGF3aWQgQ2nEmcW8YXJraWV3aWN6?= (18/30) Oct 17 2005 Nonstatic nested classes contain secret pointer to enclosing class.

Deewiant <deewiant.doesnotlike.spam gmail.com> writes:

DMD 0.135, Windows XP Service Pack 2.

class A {
	class B {
		this() {}
		
		void foo() {
			new B();
		}
	}
}

-> "no 'this' for nested class B"

Am I missing something obvious, doing something wrong, or is this a bug?

"John C" <johnch_atms hotmail.com> writes:

"Deewiant" <deewiant.doesnotlike.spam gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dionmt$afm$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 DMD 0.135, Windows XP Service Pack 2.

 class A {
 class B {
 this() {}

 void foo() {
 new B();
 }
 }
 }

 -> "no 'this' for nested class B"

 Am I missing something obvious, doing something wrong, or is this a bug?

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think non-static nested classes can have 
user-defined constructors. Try these:

1) Remove B's constructor. The compiler will add a default which you can 
use.
2) change B's declaration to this: static class B. The only downside is you 
won't be able to access A's members without maintaining a reference to an 
instance of A. But you'll also be able to add your own constructors. 

=?utf-8?B?RGF3aWQgQ2nEmcW8YXJraWV3aWN6?= <araelx gmail.com> writes:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:52:09 +0200, Deewiant  
<deewiant.doesnotlike.spam gmail.com> wrote:

 DMD 0.135, Windows XP Service Pack 2.

 class A {
 	class B {
 		this() {}
 		
 		void foo() {
 			new B();
 		}
 	}
 }

 -> "no 'this' for nested class B"

 Am I missing something obvious, doing something wrong, or is this a bug?

Nonstatic nested classes contain secret pointer to enclosing class.  
Creating them is possible only in that enclosing class (and this pointer  
is passed secretly). In A.B.foo() you probably want to create B instance  
with secret pointer same as in current instance. You probably could create  
A.newB() like that:

class A {
...
  B newB() {
   return new B();
  }
...
}

and use it insted of "new B();". But I think what you're tried could be  
allowed to.
-- 
Dawid Ciężarkiewicz