On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 12:25:40 -0400, Alexander <aldem+dm...@nk7.net> wrote:
On 29.04.2011 18:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Static opCall is possible, but I wasn't aware of the other operator
overloads being possible.
I wasn't too - it is not mentioned anywhere, just tried it.
Note that opAssign is a valid symbol name, so it can be used in places
even where it doesn't overload assignment, such as a static or global
function. It just won't map to any operator usage.
Well, the fact is - it maps. If I've static opAssign() defined, it is
called when I assign something to an object.
Even more fun - static opAdd() maps too, and - wow! - if it returns
new object, i.e. construction like:
X x;
x = x + 3;
then it will allocate new instance of X, where: static typeof(this)
opAdd(int i) { return new X(i); }
I am impressed... :)
That most certainly is a bug.
What I think is happening is you can call static functions with an
instance of that type, but the instance isn't passed to it, it's just used
as a namespace. This is a "feature" that I continue to feel is a bug.
So for example, you might expect:
x = new X(4);
x = x + 3;
assert(x.value == 7)
but it will fail, because:
x.opAdd(3)
doesn't actually pass x into the function! So there is no way you could
possibly know what the left hand side of the operator is!
-Steve
