Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:54:21 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:09:28 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, there are many things that opDotExp can do that opDot or alias
this (which is essentially opDot without any code). Hooking every
function call on a type seems to be one of the two killer use cases
of this feature (the other being defining a large range of functions
from which only a small number need to exist). But call forwarding
seems not to be one of them. There are better ways to simply forward
a call (such as in your variant example).
I'm pretty convinced that this is a useful feature, I still have
qualms about how it's really easy to define a runtime black hole
where the compiler happily compiles empty functions that do nothing
instead of complaining about calling a function that does not exist.
Also, I don't think the requirement for this feature needs to be for
the arguments to be templated, it should be sufficient to have a
single string template argument. This way, you can overload opDotExp
functions via argument lists.
That way you loose type safety of arguments.
No
class C
{
int y;
void opDotExp(string fname)(int x)
{
y = x;
}
}
auto c = new C;
c.foo(1); // ok
c.foo("hi"); // compile error, no such function.
-Steve
Good point. My take is, just have the compiler rewrite a.b(c, d, e) into
a.opDot!("b")(c, d, e) and call it a day. After that, the usual language
rules enter in action.
Andrei
