On 17 February 2012 07:42, Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote: > On 2012-02-17 04:15, H. S. Teoh wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:49:40PM -0800, Walter Bright wrote: >> [...] >>> >>> So it occurred to me that an overriding function could *inherit* the >>> >>> qualifiers from the overridden function. The qualifiers of the >>> overriding function would be the "tightest" of its explicit qualifiers >>> and its overridden function qualifiers. It turns out that most >>> functions are naturally pure, so this greatly eases things and >>> eliminates annoying typing. >> >> >> I like this idea. >> >> >> >>> I want do to this for @safe, pure, nothrow, and even const. >> >> >> Excellent! >> >> >> >>> I think it is semantically sound, as well. The overriding function >>> body will be semantically checked against this tightest set of >>> qualifiers. >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> >> Semantically, it makes sense. And reducing typing is always good. >> (That's one of my pet peeves about Java: too much typing just to achieve >> something really simple. It feels like being forced to kill a mosquito >> with a laser-guided missile by specifying 3D coordinates accurate to 10 >> decimal places.) >> >> The one disadvantage I can think of is that it will no longer be clear >> exactly what qualifiers are in effect just by looking at the function >> definition in a derived class. Which is not terrible, I suppose, but I >> can see how it might get annoying if you have to trace the overrides all >> the way up the inheritance hierarchy just to find out what qualifiers a >> function actually has. >> >> OTOH, if ddoc could automatically fill in the effective qualifiers, then >> this will be a non-problem. ;-) > > > And if ddoc could show the inheritance hierarchy as well. >
Jacob++ -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
