> On Sep 4, 2018, at 2:06 PM, Ryan Joseph <r...@thealchemistguild.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry I didn’t think enough before I sent this.
>
> We *must* allow this assignment to make operator overloads work. +=
> operators are also basically assigning TWrapper to TWrapper, right? I guess
> we need to break the default property behavior is instances that the same
> type is being assigned to itself but correct me if I’m wrong.
>
> var
> wrapper: TWrapper;
>
> wrapper += 10;
Some questions about operator overloads.
1) rec := 1; should resolve to rec.num := 1 obviously.
2) rec += 10; should call the function TWrapper.+ right? It could operate
directly on the field “num” but then the actual function wouldn’t be called.
3) should writeln(rec); resolve to writeln(rec.num); or be a syntax error? If
it resolves to rec.num then passing around the record would technically just
pass the num field and not the record. That doesn’t sound right to me. Without
thinking about it much it feels like “rec” in isolation should be treated as
the base type, ie. TWrapper.
4) I guess := operator overloads for records with a default property should be
disabled, right? Otherwise they present a conflict that needs to be resolved.
Example code:
type
TWrapper = record
num: integer;
property _default: integer read num write num; default;
class operator + (left: TWrapper; right: integer): TWrapper;
end;
class operator TWrapper.+ (left: TWrapper; right: integer): TWrapper;
begin
left.num += right;
result := left;
end;
var
rec: TWrapper;
begin
rec := 1; // rec.num := 1
rec += 10; // as-is, TWrapper.+ is called
writeln(rec); // syntax error, can’t write TWrapper?
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
