On Fri, 25 May 2012 10:52:15 -0400, Alex Rønne Petersen <a...@lycus.org>
wrote:
On 25-05-2012 16:50, deadalnix wrote:
Le 25/05/2012 15:21, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
On 25-05-2012 15:17, deadalnix wrote:
Le 25/05/2012 15:04, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
So I was writing a container class and in some test code, I called
container.clear(). Reasonable enough, right? Hell, it even compiled!
Turns out, my program completely broke at runtime. Apparently, I'd
forgotten to implement clear() on my container class, and
*object.clear() was being called instead*.
I don't blame UFCS for this. It just happened to be the reason this
compiled at all. But, what I do think is: clear is the *ABSOLUTELY
MOST
HORRIBLE NAME EVER* for a function that actually finalizes and
zeroes an
object. Did it not seem obvious to call it, I don't know, *finalize*?
And even ignoring the naming, having a symbol called clear in the
'global' namespace is absolute insanity.
Am I the only person with this opinion?
Why is UFCS involved here ?
Since the clear method didn't exist on the type, the call was mapped to
the clear function in the global scope. This is UFCS.
OK, I get it ! Weird side effect :D
BTW, where is the documentation about clear and emplace ? I can't find
it on dlang.org .
I think clear() is basically entirely undocumented still.
Wow, you're right, it's not documented. That should be fixed!
-Steve
