On Thursday, 7 May 2015 at 11:15:02 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
On Thursday, 7 May 2015 at 11:08:50 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2015 10:46:19 +0000
Lemonfiend via Digitalmars-d-learn
<digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 7 May 2015 at 10:43:28 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
> On Thursday, 7 May 2015 at 10:39:09 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 07 May 2015 10:33:44 +0000
>> Vadim Lopatin via Digitalmars-d-learn
>> <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> struct S
>>> {
>>> int i;
>>>
>>> auto foo2(T)(int j) {
>>> i=j;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static S foo(T)(int j) {
>>> S s;
>>> s.foo2!T(j);
>>> return s;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> void main()
>>> {
>>> auto s = S.foo!bool(1);
>>> }
>>
>> As I said, it is not bug. It is OK. There is no way how
>> you can
>> distinguish between static and non static methods or even
>> field in some
>> cases.
>
> e.g.:
>
> import std.stdio;
>
> struct S
> {
> string foo = "Please select me?";
> string foo() { return ("No, select me?"); };
> static string foo() { return ("I am better than the otters
> :D?"); };
> }
>
> void main()
> {
> auto s = S();
> writeln(s.foo);
> }
Well it's clear to me now why it shouldn't work.
However, the error msg is not clear on the problem. Imo it
should give a conflict error like in your previous example.
That would make it clear what's happened/allowed.
Yep, I think you are right even this example make useless and
wrong error message:
struct S
{
static S foo(T)(int j) {
S s;
return s;
}
static S foo(T)(int j) {
S s;
return s;
}
}
void main()
{
auto s = S.foo!bool(1);
}
test.d(15): Error: need 'this' for 'foo' of type '(int j)' //
WTF?
btw. it is a regresion from 2.067 on 2.066 and before it makes
much
better error. Even for OP code when is modified (static must be
declared before non static one) it have a better error msg.
test.d(6): Error: test.S.foo called with argument types (int)
matches both:
test.d(4): test.S.foo!bool.foo(int j)
and:
test.d(10): test.S.foo!bool.foo(int j)
test.d(18): Error: template instance test.S.foo!bool error
instantiating
But only when static one is declared before non static one, so
even on 2.066 it was not ideal. So I think we should open two
issues, probably one for regression and one for enhancment
OK both are regressions, cause on dmd 2.063 it is much much better
test.d(19): Error: template test.S.foo matches more than one
template declaration, test.d(3):foo(T)(int j) and
test.d(8):foo(T)(int j)
test.d(19): Error: need 'this' for 'foo' of type 'pure nothrow
@safe void(int j)'
