On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 03:37:37 -0600
Christopher Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbase...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/18/10 07:19, spir wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > I cannot find a way to define methods (I mean "member functions) outside
> > the main type-definition body:
> >
> > struct X {}
> > void X.say () {writeln("I say!");}
> > ==>
> > Element.d(85): semicolon expected, not '.'
> >
> > Do I overlook anything, or is this simply impossible? In the latter case,
> > what is the problem?
> > (In many languages, not only dynamic ones, method are or at least can be
> > defined apart.)
> >
> >
> > Denis
> > -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> > vit esse estrany ☣
> >
> > spir.wikidot.com
> >
>
> As bearophile says, it just isn't the "D way" to do things.
>
> But, if you absolutely must (or just want to, for "playing" sakes) there
> are ways of faking it using opDispatch. Here's one I just tossed
> together and tested (DMD 2.050) right now.
>
> [code snipped]
>
> Generally speaking, though, I'm not sure what the real value would be in
> doing this in D. Did you have a particular use case in mind, or was it
> just idle exploration?
Thank you very for this example use of opdispatch :-)
I'm still exploring the language (which I like very much, except for some given
features *). Actually, I just wanted to know whether it's possible, because I'm
used to this way and find it more practicle or readable in various cases. But
it is not a problem.
Denis
(*) Some inherited from C/C++ (unhelpful syntax or semantics, mainly), some
among the newest (too abstract or complicated, i'd say).
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
vit esse estrany ☣
spir.wikidot.com
