On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:48:21 +1300, Tim M <a...@b.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:18:28 +1300, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:38:18 +0300, Tim M <a...@b.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:56:03 +1300, John Reimer
<terminal.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello tim,
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:43:55 +1300, John Reimer
<terminal.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
With this code:
--------------------------------
module test5;
interface I
{
void foo();
}
class A : I {
void foo() { }
}
class B : A, I
{
alias A.foo foo;
}
void main()
{
}
--------------------------------
I get this error:
--------------------------------
class test5.B interface function I.foo is not implemented
--------------------------------
Does this make sense? I mean, shouldn't the explicit reuse of
A.foo
in B be sufficient indication to the compiler that B is satisfying
the contract I? I'm hoping to make use of such subtleties in some
code, but first I have to understand the reasoning behind this. :)
Note that this works if I remove the interface I from B's
declaration
-- ie "class B: A" -- since, in the D language, B is not required
to
fulfull A's interface contract even though it inherits from it. -JJR
It look like the real bug is re-allowing B to implement interface I
but
sometimes bug do get reported differently. Why don't you remove I
from
B's
declaration like you said that works. It actually says here
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/interface.html "Classes cannot
derive
from an interface multiple times."
Yes, please check the link again (further down the page). D allows
you to reimplement the interface as long as class B provides a new
implementation:
"A reimplemented interface must implement all the interface
functions, it does not inherit from a super class"...
That probably could be stated a little more clearly, but that's what
it says. As for why I'm doing it, I assure you that there's a very
specific reason why I'm trying this: it is a possible interfacing
mechansim for ported software of a much more complicated nature than
this simple reduction; I reduced it to this in order to try to
understand potential iteractions between class and interface layers.
The question here was to figure out the reasoning behind the language
design, not necessarily whether I should be doing it or not. ;-)
-JJR
This works btw:
module test;
interface I
{
void foo();
}
class A : I {
void foo() { }
}
class B : A,I
{
void foo() { A.foo(); }
}
void main()
{
}
It is too verbose and makes twice an overhead. I'd like to avoid this
solution.
In fact, I believe that class B : A, I {} should just work.
why? I think it is perfect how it is. You can either leave A as the
class that implements I and B would implement it through inheritance or
you can to re implement I define all new implementations and put in
return super.foo(); where needed. It is also possible to reimplement one
interface function without re implementing the whole interface.
If you are really needing to write least code you could also do something
like this but not very nice to read:
module test;
template II(char[] func)
{
const char[] II = "typeof(super." ~ func ~ "())" ~ " " ~ func ~ "()
{ return super." ~ func ~ "(); }" ;
}
interface I
{
void foo();
int bar();
}
class A : I
{
void foo() { }
int bar() { return 1; }
}
class B : A,I
{
//void foo() { return super.foo(); }
mixin(II!("foo"));
mixin(II!("bar"));
}
void main()
{
}
