Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley escribió:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Ary Borenszweig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
definition of toString that does match. Most of the time ADL leads to
confusing behavior, which is why it was dropped in D.
But the overloading is obvious! It looks for toString(...) and it
founds it
in the class, but the overloading is wrong. So for me, it should keep
looking in the enclosing scopes.
That's why I said "*most* of the time" ;) I'll agree that it's a bit
counterintuitive, but I'd rather have the compiler be a little stupid
in this regard than to pay the price of unexpected function matches
for a little bit of convenience.
Ah, I see. Well, I'd like to see such an example then. :-P
It usually won't be an issue, I think. You'll give your functions
descriptive names, and you won't have overloads in different scopes that
take similar arguments. So any example I give will probably seem
contrived. I certainly have only encountered this compiler error a bare
handful of times, and only with toString.
That said, errors of this kind would be difficult to track down, and the
workaround is very simple once you know it -- and not that difficult to
come up with if you don't. I think I came up using .toString without
having anyone tell me about it, and if I hadn't, I would have used the
fully qualified name (or an alias).
