Can getHash be made pure?
Still chugging away at implementing AA's in druntime proper, I reviewed the code for methods that can be marked pure but ran into a major road block: getHash() is not marked pure. That makes a lot of AA methods impure, that could, and probably should, be marked pure. Is it possible to make TypeInfo.getHash() pure? AFAICT there's no good reason why it shouldn't be pure. Am I missing something? T -- The most powerful one-line C program: #include "/dev/tty" -- IOCCC
Re: Can getHash be made pure?
On 3/9/2012 1:54 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: Still chugging away at implementing AA's in druntime proper, I reviewed the code for methods that can be marked pure but ran into a major road block: getHash() is not marked pure. That makes a lot of AA methods impure, that could, and probably should, be marked pure. Is it possible to make TypeInfo.getHash() pure? AFAICT there's no good reason why it shouldn't be pure. Am I missing something? It should be const, pure, nothrow, @safe.
Re: Can getHash be made pure?
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:01:01PM -0800, Walter Bright wrote: > On 3/9/2012 1:54 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >Still chugging away at implementing AA's in druntime proper, I reviewed > >the code for methods that can be marked pure but ran into a major road > >block: getHash() is not marked pure. That makes a lot of AA methods > >impure, that could, and probably should, be marked pure. > > > >Is it possible to make TypeInfo.getHash() pure? AFAICT there's no good > >reason why it shouldn't be pure. Am I missing something? > > It should be const, pure, nothrow, @safe. Hmph. I tried to make getHash() const pure nothrow @safe, but found that in some places it calls toHash() which isn't marked const pure nothrow @safe. So I fixed that as well, then found that toHash() calls toString() which isn't pure, nothrow, nor @safe... and before I knew it, I was deep into marking a *lot* of druntime functions (as perhaps they *should* be), and then I ran into this: src/object_.d(648): Error: function object.TypeInfo_AssociativeArray.next () is not callable using argument types () src/object_.d(648): Error: function object.TypeInfo_AssociativeArray.next () is not callable using argument types () src/object_.d(759): Error: function object.TypeInfo_Class.info () is not callable using argument types () src/object_.d(1334): Error: cannot uniquely infer foreach argument types src/core/runtime.d(483): Error: cannot uniquely infer foreach argument types make: *** [lib/libdruntime-linux32.a] Error 1 I'm not sure how to proceed from here. A related question though: have we implemented automatic propagation of attributes like pure/nothrow/etc., yet? Just wondering if I can just modify the base class and have the attributes propagate, or I have to search for every override of every affected function in order to mark them (as I have been doing -- just wanted to make sure it isn't for nothing). T -- It won't be covered in the book. The source code has to be useful for something, after all. -- Larry Wall
Re: Can getHash be made pure?
On 3/9/2012 5:15 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: I tried to make getHash() const pure nothrow @safe, but found that in some places it calls toHash() which isn't marked const pure nothrow @safe. So I fixed that as well, then found that toHash() calls toString() which isn't pure, nothrow, nor @safe... and before I knew it, I was deep into marking a *lot* of druntime functions (as perhaps they *should* be), and then I ran into this: src/object_.d(648): Error: function object.TypeInfo_AssociativeArray.next () is not callable using argument types () src/object_.d(648): Error: function object.TypeInfo_AssociativeArray.next () is not callable using argument types () src/object_.d(759): Error: function object.TypeInfo_Class.info () is not callable using argument types () src/object_.d(1334): Error: cannot uniquely infer foreach argument types src/core/runtime.d(483): Error: cannot uniquely infer foreach argument types make: *** [lib/libdruntime-linux32.a] Error 1 Yeah, I know, it's viral. Can't do it piecemeal. A related question though: have we implemented automatic propagation of attributes like pure/nothrow/etc., yet? Just wondering if I can just modify the base class and have the attributes propagate, or I have to search for every override of every affected function in order to mark them (as I have been doing -- just wanted to make sure it isn't for nothing). For 2.059, yes.
Re: Can getHash be made pure?
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:18:59 +0100, Walter Bright wrote: On 3/9/2012 5:15 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: I tried to make getHash() const pure nothrow @safe, but found that in some places it calls toHash() which isn't marked const pure nothrow @safe. So I fixed that as well, then found that toHash() calls toString() which isn't pure, nothrow, nor @safe... and before I knew it, I was deep into marking a *lot* of druntime functions (as perhaps they *should* be), and then I ran into this: src/object_.d(648): Error: function object.TypeInfo_AssociativeArray.next () is not callable using argument types () src/object_.d(648): Error: function object.TypeInfo_AssociativeArray.next () is not callable using argument types () src/object_.d(759): Error: function object.TypeInfo_Class.info () is not callable using argument types () src/object_.d(1334): Error: cannot uniquely infer foreach argument types src/core/runtime.d(483): Error: cannot uniquely infer foreach argument types make: *** [lib/libdruntime-linux32.a] Error 1 Yeah, I know, it's viral. Can't do it piecemeal. Bottom-up instead of top-down?
Re: Can getHash be made pure?
On 3/9/2012 7:21 PM, Martin Nowak wrote: Bottom-up instead of top-down? both.
Re: Can getHash be made pure?
On 2012-03-10 04:21, Martin Nowak wrote: On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:18:59 +0100, Walter Bright Yeah, I know, it's viral. Can't do it piecemeal. Bottom-up instead of top-down? Hard to find somewhere to start? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Can getHash be made pure?
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 06:21:08PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2012-03-10 04:21, Martin Nowak wrote: > >On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:18:59 +0100, Walter Bright > >>Yeah, I know, it's viral. Can't do it piecemeal. > >> > >Bottom-up instead of top-down? > > Hard to find somewhere to start? [...] Not that hard. Just search for toString in Object, and add qualifiers to it, then compile. You'll find a ton of errors caused by propagated qualifiers. Fix those, and you'll find more, ad nauseaum. After a few iterations of this, I found myself labelling almost every method in Object, TypeInfo, and a whole bunch of other places. I'll need to sit down someday to properly and thoroughly do this. Currently my git branch is uncompilable due to a couple o' nasty places, and I'm ready to throw in the towel. :-( Maybe I'll just finish up the actual AA implementation first, then come back to revisit pure/nothrow/const/@safe after the code itself is actually working. T -- There's light at the end of the tunnel. It's the oncoming train.
Re: Can getHash be made pure?
On 10-03-2012 18:48, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 06:21:08PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2012-03-10 04:21, Martin Nowak wrote: On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:18:59 +0100, Walter Bright Yeah, I know, it's viral. Can't do it piecemeal. Bottom-up instead of top-down? Hard to find somewhere to start? [...] Not that hard. Just search for toString in Object, and add qualifiers to it, then compile. You'll find a ton of errors caused by propagated qualifiers. Fix those, and you'll find more, ad nauseaum. After a few iterations of this, I found myself labelling almost every method in Object, TypeInfo, and a whole bunch of other places. I'll need to sit down someday to properly and thoroughly do this. Currently my git branch is uncompilable due to a couple o' nasty places, and I'm ready to throw in the towel. :-( Maybe I'll just finish up the actual AA implementation first, then come back to revisit pure/nothrow/const/@safe after the code itself is actually working. T That sounds like the best possible strategy. -- - Alex
Re: Can getHash be made pure?
On 10.03.2012 21:48, H. S. Teoh wrote: On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 06:21:08PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2012-03-10 04:21, Martin Nowak wrote: On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:18:59 +0100, Walter Bright Yeah, I know, it's viral. Can't do it piecemeal. Bottom-up instead of top-down? Hard to find somewhere to start? [...] Not that hard. Just search for toString in Object, and add qualifiers to it, then compile. You'll find a ton of errors caused by propagated qualifiers. Fix those, and you'll find more, ad nauseaum. After a few iterations of this, I found myself labelling almost every method in Object, TypeInfo, and a whole bunch of other places. I'll need to sit down someday to properly and thoroughly do this. Currently my git branch is uncompilable due to a couple o' nasty places, and I'm ready to throw in the towel. :-( Maybe I'll just finish up the actual AA implementation first, then come back to revisit pure/nothrow/const/@safe after the code itself is actually working. T At least @safe 'leak' could be temporarily plugged with @trusted. -- Dmitry Olshansky
