• nazo (17/17) Dec 01 2006 I think that cast is binary operation with value and type. And I made
• Oskar Linde (13/34) Dec 01 2006 Interesting ideas. I can't see off hand what uses mixing types and
• nazo (5/22) Dec 01 2006 I have no mind but this extend more representation.

nazo <lovesyao gmail.com> writes:

I think that cast is binary operation with value and type. And I made 
groundless patch(I tested with dmdfe and gdc-2.0-dev). This idea break 
old opCast call and have side effects like allowing "cast(value)". But 
it support other pattern like "type + value". How about this idea?
#sorry for my poor English

val_a op val_b (Example: a + b)
val_a.opfunc(val_b)
val_b.opfunc_r(val_a)

val op type (Example: a + B, cast(B)a)
val.opfunc!(type)()
type.opfunc_r(val)

type op val (Example: A + b)
type.opfunc(val)
val.opfunc_r!(type)()

type_a op type_b (Example: A + B)
type_a.opfunc!(type_b)()
type_b.opfunc_r!(type_a)()

Oskar Linde <oskar.lindeREM OVEgmail.com> writes:

nazo wrote:
 I think that cast is binary operation with value and type. And I made 
 groundless patch(I tested with dmdfe and gdc-2.0-dev). This idea break 
 old opCast call and have side effects like allowing "cast(value)". But 
 it support other pattern like "type + value". How about this idea?
 #sorry for my poor English
 
 val_a op val_b (Example: a + b)
 val_a.opfunc(val_b)
 val_b.opfunc_r(val_a)
 
 val op type (Example: a + B, cast(B)a)
 val.opfunc!(type)()
 type.opfunc_r(val)
 
 type op val (Example: A + b)
 type.opfunc(val)
 val.opfunc_r!(type)()
 
 type_a op type_b (Example: A + B)
 type_a.opfunc!(type_b)()
 type_b.opfunc_r!(type_a)()


Interesting ideas. I can't see off hand what uses mixing types and 
expressions in binary operations could have. Do you have any such in 
mind? Also, doesn't this introduce ambiguities?

Type *val; // Type.opfunc(val) or declaration of ptr to Type?

Allowing

T opCast(T)() {...}

is great. The next step should be making opCast conversions implicit 
instead of explicit and thereby usable. :)
This also calls for better template specialization methods...

opCast_r is a really interesting idea close to C++ implicit 
constructors. They should also be implicit to be of much use.

/Oskar

nazo <lovesyao gmail.com> writes:

Oskar Linde wrote:
 Interesting ideas. I can't see off hand what uses mixing types and 
 expressions in binary operations could have. Do you have any such in 
 mind? Also, doesn't this introduce ambiguities?
 
 Type *val; // Type.opfunc(val) or declaration of ptr to Type?

I have no mind but this extend more representation.
I think that this doesn't introduce ambiguities because this section is 
after semantic analysis.
 Allowing
 
 T opCast(T)() {...}
 
 is great. The next step should be making opCast conversions implicit 
 instead of explicit and thereby usable. :)
 This also calls for better template specialization methods...

really. I had forgotten:-(
 opCast_r is a really interesting idea close to C++ implicit 
 constructors. They should also be implicit to be of much use.
 
 /Oskar