digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 9257] New: [ER] New optional "operator" keyword to validate magic functions
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (45/45) Jan 02 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9257
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (15/31) Jan 02 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9257
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/13) Jan 02 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9257
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9257 Summary: [ER] New optional "operator" keyword to validate magic functions Product: D Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com ReportedBy: monarchdodra gmail.com Rationale: When writing an operator, one might accidentally typo, use the wrong signature, use the wrong name, use an un-existing name etc. Because the compiler relies on only checking function names, the end user has no way to check if the code is correct, appart from "noticing" that calling the operator doesn't work. This can become quite clumsy once the more complicated things, like "opIndexOpAssign" (or was that "opOpIndexAssign" ?) get involved. Description: When writing a function with a "magic" name, one can prefix it with the keyword operator. If that function name doesn't match any of the special functions, with the correct amount of arguments, then a compile error is thrown: //---- struct S { operator opBinary(string op)(S rhs); //Fine operator opBinary(string op)(S rhs1, S rhs2); //Error, wrong number of arguments operator opOpBinary(string op)(Type rhs); //Error, did you mean opOpAssign? operator opcmp(Type rhs); //Error, did you mean opCmp? static bool opEquals(S s1, S s2); //Error, opEquals cannot be declared as static } //---- This would help with keeping in line with D's safety standard, in particular, the override keyword. (from the discussion: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/iubdngjksicwxugrqesc forum.dlang.org) Also want to point out: This bug has even made it into phobos. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 02 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9257 bearophile_hugs eml.cc changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bearophile_hugs eml.ccoperator opBinary(string op)(S rhs); //Fine operator opBinary(string op)(S rhs1, S rhs2); //Error, wrong number of arguments operator opOpBinary(string op)(Type rhs); //Error, did you mean opOpAssign? operator opcmp(Type rhs); //Error, did you mean opCmp? static bool opEquals(S s1, S s2); //Error, opEquals cannot be declared as static } //---- This would help with keeping in line with D's safety standard, in particular, the override keyword. (from the discussion: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/iubdngjksicwxugrqesc forum.dlang.org)Thank you for opening a ER. I was too much busy to do it. I don't know if the solution proposed here is the right one, but being aware that a problem exists is the first step toward its solution. Probably a pseudo-keyword like " operator" is more reasonable than "operator".Also want to point out: This bug has even made it into phobos.I suggest to show here some of the lines of code that contain that bug. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 02 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9257I've since fixed it: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/69d3a930b9d448d24b061ffc60d252ca056cb33e#L0R1805 It was really "just" a typo: "opOpassign" instead of "opOpAssign". But still, the language shouldn't allow for "just a typo" kind of errors. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------Also want to point out: This bug has even made it into phobos.I suggest to show here some of the lines of code that contain that bug.
Jan 02 2013