On Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 07:26:47 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 February 2013 at 06:15:29 UTC, dennis luehring
wrote:
Am 27.02.2013 06:54, schrieb deadalnix:
In current D, the ambiguity is _already_ resolved - if you
want
to function
address, use & operator.
D behave very much like C on that regard, so I don't really
see
how this can be true.
void (*functionPtr)();
//both are valid and working in C
functionPtr xyz = &foo;
functionPtr zxy = foo; //<- this is solved in D
I don't think D solved that. Only partially. Both are conflated
here for instance :
void foo() {}
foo(); <=> (&foo)();
Is another presentation of the same conflation.
The DIP propose to effectively solve that by removing
completely the entity represented by foo in &foo . You can't
have conflation with something that do not exists.
No, in D there is no conflation between this two. The fact that
you write (&foo)() instead of foo() (if foo is pointer) says
about it.
What Andrei, Kenji and Jonathan try to say (I guess) that
function type in C in all cases is implicitly convertible to
function pointer except when it is used with sizeof, Alignof and
& operators (iso/iec $6.3.2). This is among the first differences
I noticed when came from C.
If such implicit conversion is performed in D, taking into
account D complexity and corner cases may lead to collisions on
using function name - is it a pointer or a type?
