On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
mya.pp(16,12) Error: Operator is not overloaded: "complex" + "complex"
myb.pp(9,14) Fatal: There were 1 errors compiling module, stopping
Which is strange to say the least, as the per the definition/intent of
generics, the code in mya should not know anything about the types that
will be used when specializing. (in this case complex).
As per the intent of generics the second program above should compile
just as well.
But then different rules will apply for operators and procedure calls:
- procedure calls must be resolvable at define time
- Operators must be resolvable at specialization time.
No principal problem (we can define it so), but strange at least.
It is correct that the second doesn't compile. To make the second
compile, the overloaded operators for the complex type must be defined
inside complex (which was/is? not possible).
1. The + is not defined 'inside' integer either. Why should it be required for
a record ?
What kind of strange reasoning is that ? Are we going to redesign operators
for records ?
(I suspect this is why it is possible to add type restrictions in the
Delphi/.Net implementations)
2. If I have my own overloaded version of '+' for a record, the above means
that it
cannot ever be used for generics, while it will be used for all my other
code.
Say I define a type, and decide not to put the operators inside the record,
for whatever reason. I am happily unaware of generics. Along comes an afficiniado
of generics, and wants to use my type in generics, but hits the above problem.
He is stuck.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
