Am 02.07.2012 07:13, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
On Monday, July 02, 2012 07:00:23 dennis luehring wrote:
Am 01.07.2012 23:02, schrieb Walter Bright:
> On 7/1/2012 11:53 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> That successfully compiles and prints "Member". Same thing happens if
>> you move the UFCS func and Foo definition out into their own separate
>> modules. But I was expecting a conflict error at compile-time. Is this
>> a bug?
>
> No, it's correct behavior. A real member overrides.
isn't that some sort of highjacking then?
More like it avoids hijacking. It stops you from creating a function which is
used instead of the one which is on the class or struct.
Granted, this does mean that you could be surprised about your external
function not being called, and adding a new member function could cause your
existing external function to no longer be called (which could be a problem),
but realistically there's no other way to handle the situation. It's possible
to explicitly give a path to the free function (e.g. path.to.function), but
there's no way to do that for a member function, since there's only one way to
call it. So, if you were forced to disambiguate, you could never indicate
anything else other than the free function - not without introducing a new
syntax to indicate the member function.
- Jonathan M Davis
but the compiler selects the member-functions silently - thats odd, ok i
will see it very fast - but then i need to change my code anyway - so
whats the reason for the silent "overwrite"?
