http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8114
--- Comment #16 from Stewart Gordon <s...@iname.com> 2012-05-20 06:45:56 PDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > It depends on what you mean by "pointer to member". If it means there are no pointer-to-member _types_ in D, then that's what it should say. > If you say a VARIABLE is a pointer to a member, then yes, it doesn't have to > have a distinct type. > > If you say a TYPE is a pointer to a member, then (by definition), it is a > distinct type. (Otherwise, how do you distinguish between a type that is a > pointer-to-member vs. one that isn't?) You wouldn't. They'd be one and the same type. I don't see any reason for them to be distinguished. If OTOH you implement a pointer-to-member as an index into the vtbl, so that it calls the correct method implementation for the object's subclass, _then_ you need a distinct type for it. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------