• d-bugmail puremagic.com (77/77) Feb 26 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9597
• d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/7) Feb 26 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9597

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9597

           Summary: using "this" as a type leads to confusion
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: gassa mail.ru



Using "this" as a type in method parameter declarations is not universal
because of the postblit constructor signature.  It also creates confusion when
the method signature resembles the postblit constructor.

Here are a few examples of what can and cannot be declared (DMD 2.062):
-----
struct S
{
    int x = 1;
    int y = 0;

    this (this) // postblit constructor called like this: "S b = a;"
    {
        x = 10;
        y = 1;
    }

    this (ref this) // constructor called as: "S c = S (a);"
    {
        x = 100;
    }

    this (S q) // compiles, example call: "S d = S (S (a));"
    {
        x = 1000;
    }

    this (ref this, this t) // compiles, called as: "S e = S (a, b);"
    {
        x = 10_000;
    }
/*
    this (this r) // does not compile: found 'r' when expecting ')'
    {             // would be equivalent to: "this (S r)"
        x = 100_000;
    }

    this (this, this s) // does not compile: found ',' when expecting ')'
    {                   // would be equivalent to: "this (S, S s)"
        x = 1_000_000;
    }
*/
}

import std.stdio;

void main ()
{
    S a;
    S b = a;
    S c = S (a);
    S d = S (S (a));
    S e = S (a, b);
    writeln (a.x, " ", a.y); // 1 0
    writeln (b.x, " ", b.y); // 10 1
    writeln (c.x, " ", c.y); // 100 0
    writeln (d.x, " ", d.y); // 1000 0
    writeln (e.x, " ", e.y); // 10000 0
}
-----
Now, "this(this)" is the postblit constructor and thus an understandable
exclusion.  Still, the reason "this(this r)" or "this(this, this s)" do not
currently compile - while other examples compile and run smoothly - seems
arbitrary and technical.

To always require using "typeof(this)" instead of "this" for the type would be
less confusing.

An intermediate yet not-so-confusing solution would be to forbid using "this"
in constructor parameter declarations while still permitting it in other method
declarations.

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

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9597




Discussion which led to this issue report:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/pffhtlwgxwhqbiejzkca forum.dlang.org

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