www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - Pseudo member functions

reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
As you all know, functions of the form ...

   func( char[] s, int i) 

can be used in you code as  ...

  char[] x;
  x.func(a);

I'm calling this usage a "pseudo-member function" for want of a better
term.

But if the function is defined in a different module, and one needs to
disambiguate the function reference, what is the correct syntax for using
the function as a pseudo-member function? I know how to call it using
traditional syntax ...

   othermod.func(x,a);

but I'm not sure of the other format.

It is not 

   x.othermod.func(a);

nor

   x.(othermod.func)(a);

Any ideas anyone?

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
12/05/2005 12:58:16 PM
May 11 2005
next sibling parent Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 13:05:41 +1000, Derek Parnell wrote:


 ... if the function is defined in a different module, and one needs to
 disambiguate the function reference, what is the correct syntax for using
 the function as a pseudo-member function?



I have found one form that works!

  with (othermod) x.func(a);

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
12/05/2005 2:15:39 PM
May 11 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
Derek Parnell wrote:

 As you all know, functions of the form ...
 
    func( char[] s, int i) 
 
 can be used in you code as  ...
 
   char[] x;
   x.func(a);
 
 I'm calling this usage a "pseudo-member function" for want of a better
 term.
 
 But if the function is defined in a different module, and one needs to
 disambiguate the function reference, what is the correct syntax for using
 the function as a pseudo-member function? I know how to call it using
 traditional syntax ...
 
    othermod.func(x,a);
 
 but I'm not sure of the other format.
 
 It is not 
 
    x.othermod.func(a);
 
 nor
 
    x.(othermod.func)(a);
 
 Any ideas anyone?
 


Good question.  I don't know if there are any slick solutions. I could 
only think up these possibilities:



































In short, there doesn't seem to be a way using the fully qualified name 
alone.

-JJR
May 11 2005
parent John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:







Oops! "import importable;" is supposed to be "import other;"
May 11 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
news:1hxdwuep1skbe.11d735ffbmq1g.dlg 40tude.net...

 As you all know, functions of the form ...

   func( char[] s, int i)

 can be used in you code as  ...

  char[] x;
  x.func(a);

 I'm calling this usage a "pseudo-member function" for want of a better
 term.


public service announcement for new readers: I vaguely recall from Walter 
that it was an implementation atrifact and isn't part of the language spec - 
hence unsupported.
May 12 2005
parent reply "B.G." <gbatyan gmx.net> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:

 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
 news:1hxdwuep1skbe.11d735ffbmq1g.dlg 40tude.net...
 

As you all know, functions of the form ...

  func( char[] s, int i)

can be used in you code as  ...

 char[] x;
 x.func(a);

I'm calling this usage a "pseudo-member function" for want of a better
term.


 
 
 public service announcement for new readers: I vaguely recall from Walter 
 that it was an implementation atrifact and isn't part of the language spec - 
 hence unsupported. 
 


Oh, always wanted to ask about this.

So this 'feature' is considered to be a bug and a bad thing, right?

I haven't written a lot of D programs, but this is a cool feature to 
write nice code (and to not using classes for strings :-)
This would hurt me if this feature would be dropped. As I've lurked in 
some forums, this feature is being appreciated by many, so if there's a 
serious reason to forbid this feature, I'd really want to know why.

Regards!
May 13 2005
parent reply David L. Davis <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:
In article <d62jqm$2fd7$1 digitaldaemon.com>, B.G. says...

Ben Hinkle wrote:

 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
 news:1hxdwuep1skbe.11d735ffbmq1g.dlg 40tude.net...
 

As you all know, functions of the form ...

  func( char[] s, int i)

can be used in you code as  ...

 char[] x;
 x.func(a);

I'm calling this usage a "pseudo-member function" for want of a better
term.


 
 
 public service announcement for new readers: I vaguely recall from Walter 
 that it was an implementation atrifact and isn't part of the language spec - 
 hence unsupported. 
 


Oh, always wanted to ask about this.

So this 'feature' is considered to be a bug and a bad thing, right?

I haven't written a lot of D programs, but this is a cool feature to 
write nice code (and to not using classes for strings :-)
This would hurt me if this feature would be dropped. As I've lurked in 
some forums, this feature is being appreciated by many, so if there's a 
serious reason to forbid this feature, I'd really want to know why.

Regards!


Walter answered pretty positive about leaving this trick be, in his reply on the
3th of March 2005 found below:
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/18038

David L.

P.S. I've started using this trick in my code just recently myself...I really
like it a lot!! :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

MKoD: http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html
May 13 2005
next sibling parent "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> writes:
 Walter answered pretty positive about leaving this trick be, in his reply 
 on the
 3th of March 2005 found below:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/18038

 David L.

 P.S. I've started using this trick in my code just recently myself...I 
 really
 like it a lot!! :)


Well I'll be darned - it looks like he does say he'll document it. I thought 
he stepped back from that statement later in the thread but I can't find any 
reply that says otherwise so it looks like I was mistaken.

-Ben
May 13 2005
prev sibling parent reply "B.G." <gbatyan gmx.net> writes:
David L. Davis wrote:

 In article <d62jqm$2fd7$1 digitaldaemon.com>, B.G. says...
 

Ben Hinkle wrote:


"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
news:1hxdwuep1skbe.11d735ffbmq1g.dlg 40tude.net...



As you all know, functions of the form ...

 func( char[] s, int i)

can be used in you code as  ...

char[] x;
x.func(a);

I'm calling this usage a "pseudo-member function" for want of a better
term.



public service announcement for new readers: I vaguely recall from Walter 
that it was an implementation atrifact and isn't part of the language spec - 
hence unsupported. 


Oh, always wanted to ask about this.

So this 'feature' is considered to be a bug and a bad thing, right?

I haven't written a lot of D programs, but this is a cool feature to 
write nice code (and to not using classes for strings :-)
This would hurt me if this feature would be dropped. As I've lurked in 
some forums, this feature is being appreciated by many, so if there's a 
serious reason to forbid this feature, I'd really want to know why.

Regards!


 
 
 Walter answered pretty positive about leaving this trick be, in his reply on
the
 3th of March 2005 found below:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/18038
 
 David L.
 
 P.S. I've started using this trick in my code just recently myself...I really
 like it a lot!! :)
 


I love everything looking nice and being efficient.
It's extremely usefull with functions operating on char[]. Using this 
technique, they are applied like they were methods of some String class, 
but they're just syntactic sugar, and no string class wrappers are 
needed. That's is infinitely cool :)

The only thing that itches, are templated functions and functions from 
another module referenced with the full qualified path.
 From earlier threads, for templated functions aliases need to be 
defined for the whole thing to work, which is IMHO not cool.

I don't know if it's possible, but, if there is a templated function for 
which we might somehow know that it's template parameter is always 
supposed to be an _array_, compiler could theoretically be able to 
choose the 'right' templated function without a need to define an alias.
========

BTW. I've already heared about 5 different names everybody gives to this 
'phenomenon'. Is there an official name for this?
is this 'Pseudo member functions' or it's another subjective attempt to 
give it a name?
May 13 2005
parent pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <d62suf$2mrk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, B.G. says...

I don't know if it's possible, but, if there is a templated function for 
which we might somehow know that it's template parameter is always 
supposed to be an _array_, compiler could theoretically be able to 
choose the 'right' templated function without a need to define an alias.



I'm glad you asked this, because I was curious myself.  As it turns out, D uses
the rather unintuitive rule "T:T[]" to require an array template type.


 template x(T:T[]){ /* arrays only, T = aggregate type */ }
 template x(T){ /* everything else */ }


Which makes some sense, given that if we want T to assume the actual type
passed, we'd use "T[]" or just "T".

Some other handy template rules is use are:


 template x(T:Object){ /* objects only */ }
 template x(T:T*){ /* pointers only, T = aggregate type */ }


Structs are lumped in with scalar types (no common base class), so there's no
equivalent for the 'Object' rule above.  Likewise, delegates and functions have
no such equivalent, as you need to specify the entire delegate/function type.


 template x(T:struct){ /* won't compile */ }
 template x(T:delegate){ /* won't compile */ }
 template x(T:void delegate()){ /* works (use aliases for cleaner code!) */ }



Anoter tip: Sometimes, I like to declare template sets with rules for types I
don't want the user to use under any circumstance.  This goes especially if the
template i've defined is too general, and might match types that wouldn't apply.
Then I pack the template definition with a "pragma(msg)" along with a "static
assert(false)" to warn the unwary developer.  This way, compilation grinds to a
halt and the developer is told why.



BTW. I've already heared about 5 different names everybody gives to this 
'phenomenon'. Is there an official name for this?
is this 'Pseudo member functions' or it's another subjective attempt to 
give it a name?


AFAIK, there is no 'official' name for this feature.  The title 'pseudo member
functions' is about as close as we get.  It's definately better than what it
really is: 'automatic member-like alias for array types' or an 'outer namespace
declared associated member'.  

I'm sure the CS crowd out there could come up with a few other more
offical-sounding names.

- EricAnderton at yahoo
May 13 2005
prev sibling parent "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news terrainformatica.com> writes:
Initially I was using this approach
but stopped for many reasons.

What could be done instead of "pseudo-member function"
(I am calling them: "external methods") ?

Let's say I would like to have "pseudo-member function" for wchar[] type

bool wchar[].like(wchar[] pattern) { .... }

in Harmonia I've created special wrapper

struct string
{
   wchar[] chars;
   static opCall(wchar[] s) { string s; s.chars = s; return s;  }
   bool like(wchar[] pattern) { .... }
}

Having this I am doing following when I need 'like'

ubyte[] loadFromUrl( wchar[] s )
{
    if( string(s).like("file://*") )
        .....
}

So I am not using 'string' as a type of variable but rather
as a namespace designator. This shift of struct paradigm is
a bit ugly (and probably less efficient a bit) but works.

This does not prevent to use string as a type of variable though.
But it does not allow you to have static variables of such strings....
(no ctors in structs!)

I am using string as a typename in harmonia.ui.controls.behaviors.LineEditor
as type of dynamic text buffer.

Andrew.
May 13 2005