On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:57:09 +0100, Tofu Ninja <emmo...@purdue.edu> wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 April 2013 at 14:33:21 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
A member function cannot modify it's own 'this' pointer.
However, a free function can do it happily, which when combined with
UFCS gives you the same syntax and behaviour:
class A {
//......
}
void replace(ref A a)
{
a = new A();
}
void main() {
A a = new A();
A b = a;
assert(b is a);
b.replace();
assert(!(b is a));
}
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/147f69e1
Yes... this is what I feared. I knew I could do it like that but I was
hoping a more elegant solution was available, seems like bad design to
have a function that is fully intended to be a class function but not
actually be able to declare it within the class block.
I would question always question "fully intended" on a case by case basis:
http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/how-non-member-functions-improve-encapsu/184401197
I agree that grouping functions together that should be used together, or
on the same type of object is a good idea from an organisational point of
view but that shouldn't be the only reason for making them class member
functions.
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
