www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 8785] New: feature request: static mixin

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8785

           Summary: feature request: static mixin
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: luka8088 owave.net



Currently, there is no way of encapsulating mixin templates as static keyword
has no effect.

import std.stdio;

mixin template myTemplate () {
  void fn () {
    writeln("myTemplate");
  }
}

struct myStruct {
  static mixin myTemplate t1; // static keyword has no effect
}

void main () {
  myStruct s1;
  s1.t1.fn(); // myTemplate
  s1.fn(); // myTemplate
}

I would kindly request that static keyword encapsulates the template members so
that s1.fn is not directly accessible but rather only as s1.t1.fn

One hack proposal was to use

static struct t1 {
  mixin myTemplate;
}

but that turned out to be a bed idea because in that case mixin code can't use
this to access myStruct

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 08 2012
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8785


Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrej.mitrovich gmail.com



15:16:21 PST ---
What this would basically do is introduce namespaces into the language, as 't1'
would be some kind of pseudo-type which has access to its parent, but it itself
wouldn't be a template (since it doesn't require !()), and it wouldn't be an
aggregate.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

Anyway for the longest time I actually thought "mixin myTemplate t1" means the
symbols are only accessible through "t1", but the spec does say it's only used
for disambiguating so I was wrong.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 26 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8785


Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement


-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 26 2013
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8785






 What this would basically do is introduce namespaces into the language, as 't1'
 would be some kind of pseudo-type which has access to its parent, but it itself
 wouldn't be a template (since it doesn't require !()), and it wouldn't be an
 aggregate.
 
 Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)
 
 Anyway for the longest time I actually thought "mixin myTemplate t1" means the
 symbols are only accessible through "t1", but the spec does say it's only used
 for disambiguating so I was wrong.


I also thought this way, until I read the docs properly. It would be useful in
some cases to have both behaviors. "static" is proposed because it is already
used with imports in this way - "import" vs "static import". Maybe "static" is
not the best keyword/solution for this case but it is the first solution that
came to mind.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 27 2013