• Kris (12/12) Dec 23 2005 Conflict reported:
• Manfred Nowak (11/13) Dec 23 2005 [...]
• Stewart Gordon (13/15) Dec 24 2005
• Manfred Nowak (16/19) Dec 24 2005 Thanks for your input. It changed my view on the subject drastically.
• Thomas Kuehne (26/38) Dec 28 2005 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

"Kris" <fu bar.com> writes:

Conflict reported:

class Foo
{
        void foo (int i) {}
        void foo (int i) {}
}

No conflict reported:

class Foo
{
        void foo (char[] i) {}
        void foo (char[] i) {}
}

Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:

Kris wrote:

 Conflict reported:

[...]
 No conflict reported:

[...]

For a practical programmer the second case is not a problem because 
the conflict is reported as soon as the function is called, which is 
most likeley done in the `unittest'.

This is also consistent with the behaviour of not reporting 
conflicting definitions from imports until they are used.

Therefore only an irregularity can be found in the first case. But it 
is surely not a bug to report conflicts earlier than usual.

-manfred  

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Manfred Nowak wrote:
<snip>
 This is also consistent with the behaviour of not reporting 
 conflicting definitions from imports until they are used.

<snip>

That's different.  Conflicting function names in different libraries are 
not a fault of either library.  It is the responsibility of the app 
programmer to disambiguate between them.

OTOH there is no possible way to disambiguate between the two functions 
in the OP's case.  As such, it is an error in the module in which the 
functions are defined.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:

[...]
 OTOH there is no possible way to disambiguate between the two
 functions in the OP's case.  As such, it is an error in the
 module in which the functions are defined.


Thanks for your input. It changed my view on the subject drastically.

Your argument is true and well founded under the assumption, that 
declarations should enable usage.

But if you drop this assumption it is becoming wrong. i.e. if you 
want a way to prohibit the usage of an identifier you are loosing a 
simple way, when double declarations are errored out by the compiler 
if in the same module.

For example look at the topic "Can I stop people deriving from my 
class?" in Stroustrups FAQ
http://public.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html

Wouldn't it be neat to simply declare the constructor of class 
`Usable' twice?

-manfred
[X-posted and F'up to Digitalmars.D]

Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kris schrieb am 2005-12-23:
 Conflict reported:

 class Foo
 {
         void foo (int i) {}
         void foo (int i) {}
 }

 No conflict reported:

 class Foo
 {
         void foo (char[] i) {}
         void foo (char[] i) {}
 }

At first it seemed like a no-brainer, but D certanly has some
interresting properties.

is legal:





is discurraged:
(statement.html: Local names should all be unique within a function.)






Either my understanding of D's name spaces is severly lacking
or the docs seem to be inconsistend.

By the way why "*should* be unique" and not "have to be unique"?

Thomas


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFDsuhG3w+/yD4P9tIRAjyqAJ44MElEnU3OwZfPFKPdqN2noAZzmgCgogVj
5FwsNqLCgpkh87ocPSjUP9o=
=2kjj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----