On 11/25/2012 07:27 AM, comco wrote:
>
>> A!B(...) defines a struct A with B typed in as Method, so call to
>> method(s); is the same as B(string)
> Why is that? Here method is an instance of the type Method, not the type
> Method itself,
That could be case but you original code did use a type name for Method:
A!B(B(0));
This would be using an instance:
B instance;
A!instance(B(0));
It would not compile because you would be using an instance as a type
name in the constructor signature:
this(Method method) { // <-- ERROR: Method is an instance
// ...
}
> so by saying `method(s)` we can't mean a constructor.
> Something very strange happens...
The situation with constructors and opCall() are still confused. There
are a number of bugs open but not exactly this one.
> I have a simpler example now:
Even simpler:
struct A
{
int i;
void opCall(int i) {
}
}
void main() {
auto a = A(42);
}
Error: variable deneme.main.a type void is inferred from initializer
opCall(42), and variables cannot be of type void
Error: expression opCall(42) is void and has no value
The bug is that a non-static opCall() is chosen instead of the default
constructor. As you say, non-static opCall() overloads should not
interfere with construction.
Could you please create a bug report:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/
Ali
