Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
On 07/18/2012 01:37 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 23:11:43 Timon Gehr wrote: This issue is unrelated to CRTP. (also, you probably want to negate that static if condition, otherwise the code is valid and poses no challenge to a compiler.) It's not that it makes the compiler's life hard. It's the fact that conditional compilation relies on state that doesn't exist yet. It's messed up to be checking whether an object defines something when you're in the middle of defining that object. ... Declarations in D are declarative. There is no notion of state.
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
On 07/18/2012 11:08 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 23:38:04 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
It's not that it makes the compiler's life hard. It's the fact that
conditional compilation relies on state that doesn't exist yet. It's
messed up
to be checking whether an object defines something when you're in the
middle of
defining that object.
[snip]
- Jonathan M Davis
Well, while you "can" do it in C++ as the "Curiously Recursive Template
Pattern" (particularly popular way of implementing the singleton pattern
BTW), you can't just do anything you feel like doing with it.
If I remember correctly, in C++, you can't access any of T's members, or
create any (stack) instances of T, or (I think) call T's any of T's
static members, because "T is not correctly formed yet".
Did you try anything more advanced? For example, this outright _crashes_
my (r)dmd:
class MyBase(T)
{
int a = T.hello();
}
class MySubA : MyBase!MySubA
{
static int hello(){return 0;}
}
Well, that is a bug.
I'm not entirely sure how valid the comparison with C++'s CRTP is,
because D's classes are actually pointer to implementation, but I think
it is a safe bet that what C++ can't do, neither can D.
Careful there. D allows forward references. This is all supposed to work
in D. (but DMD is poor when it comes to tricky symbol lookup tasks.)
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 23:38:04 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
It's not that it makes the compiler's life hard. It's the fact
that
conditional compilation relies on state that doesn't exist yet.
It's messed up
to be checking whether an object defines something when you're
in the middle of
defining that object.
[snip]
- Jonathan M Davis
Well, while you "can" do it in C++ as the "Curiously Recursive
Template Pattern" (particularly popular way of implementing the
singleton pattern BTW), you can't just do anything you feel like
doing with it.
If I remember correctly, in C++, you can't access any of T's
members, or create any (stack) instances of T, or (I think) call
T's any of T's static members, because "T is not correctly formed
yet".
Did you try anything more advanced? For example, this outright
_crashes_ my (r)dmd:
class MyBase(T)
{
int a = T.hello();
}
class MySubA : MyBase!MySubA
{
static int hello(){return 0;}
}
I'm not entirely sure how valid the comparison with C++'s CRTP
is, because D's classes are actually pointer to implementation,
but I think it is a safe bet that what C++ can't do, neither can
D.
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
> That being said, I have never used CRTP in D so far, since template
mixins seem to be the better choice in almost all situations.
FWIW, CRTP is the main reason I used classes in Pegged, to allow grammar
rules to refer to themselves. My earlier attempts with structs did not work.
So, given a grammar rule like:
Expr <- '(' Expr ')' / ...
I use:
class Expr : Or! (Sequence!(Literal!("("), Expr, Literal!(")")) , ...)
{ ... }
As you can see, class Expr refer to itself while it's not defined yet. It's
the main use I've found for this idiom. Many C++ parsers use the same trick
and I was particularly glad to see it worked in D too.
Most of the times I use mixins, but could not find a way to do the same
recursive rule definition with them.
IIRC, I talk a bit about the CRTP in my tutorial on D templates , on Github.
Philippe
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 23:11:43 Timon Gehr wrote: > This issue is unrelated to CRTP. (also, you probably want to negate > that static if condition, otherwise the code is valid and poses no > challenge to a compiler.) It's not that it makes the compiler's life hard. It's the fact that conditional compilation relies on state that doesn't exist yet. It's messed up to be checking whether an object defines something when you're in the middle of defining that object. Now, as David N. points out in another post, this isn't exactly the only case of that. You can make a templated type do it to itself via something like __traits(derivedMembers, typeof(this)), but in this case, you're doing it on a template argument which may or may not be a derived class (though presumably is). So, in any case, it's a problem in that you do have to be careful about doing conditional compilation based on the type, since it's in the middle of being defined, but that's not necessarily enough to merit getting rid of the feature (especially since you can have essentially the same problem even without a base class). - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 20:50:41 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The problem is that if you have static ifs and the like in the
base class
which depends on compile time reflection of the derived class,
you effectively
have a recursive template definition. e.g.
class MyBase(T)
{
static if(is(tyepeof(T.func(
{
int func() { return 42; }
}
}
I don't see how this would be any different than, say, using
__traits(derivedMembers, typeof(this)) in a struct/class
declaration.
That being said, I have never used CRTP in D so far, since
template mixins seem to be the better choice in almost all
situations.
David
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
On 07/17/2012 10:50 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 22:36:10 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/17/2012 07:23 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 14:48:32 David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 05:24:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
This code strikes me as being a bug:
class MyBase(T)
{}
class MySubA : MyBase!MySubA
{}
class MySubB : MyBase!MySubB
{}
void main()
{}
This pattern is actually quite common in C++ code, and referred
to as CRTP (curiously recurring template pattern). If you propose
to kill it, Andrei is going to get mad at you. ;)
Well, it certainly seems insane to me at first glance - particularly when
you take compile time reflection into account, since the derived classes'
definitions are now effectively recursive (so I suspect that the
situation is worse in D, since C++ doesn't have conditional compliation
like D does).
The fact that it is allowed does not make the compiler's job
significantly more complicated. It is not important if the type is
passed as a template argument or referred to directly from inside the
template -- the issues are the same.
The problem is that if you have static ifs and the like in the base class
which depends on compile time reflection of the derived class, you effectively
have a recursive template definition. e.g.
class MyBase(T)
{
static if(is(typeof(T.func(
{
int func() { return 42; }
}
}
- Jonathan M Davis
This issue is unrelated to CRTP. (also, you probably want to negate
that static if condition, otherwise the code is valid and poses no
challenge to a compiler.)
class MyBase{
static if(!is(typeof(T.func(
int func() { return 42; }
}
class T : MyBase { }
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 22:36:10 Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 07:23 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 14:48:32 David Nadlinger wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 05:24:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >>> This code strikes me as being a bug:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> class MyBase(T)
> >>> {}
> >>>
> >>> class MySubA : MyBase!MySubA
> >>> {}
> >>>
> >>> class MySubB : MyBase!MySubB
> >>> {}
> >>>
> >>> void main()
> >>> {}
> >>>
> >>
> >> This pattern is actually quite common in C++ code, and referred
> >> to as CRTP (curiously recurring template pattern). If you propose
> >> to kill it, Andrei is going to get mad at you. ;)
> >
> > Well, it certainly seems insane to me at first glance - particularly when
> > you take compile time reflection into account, since the derived classes'
> > definitions are now effectively recursive (so I suspect that the
> > situation is worse in D, since C++ doesn't have conditional compliation
> > like D does).
> The fact that it is allowed does not make the compiler's job
> significantly more complicated. It is not important if the type is
> passed as a template argument or referred to directly from inside the
> template -- the issues are the same.
The problem is that if you have static ifs and the like in the base class
which depends on compile time reflection of the derived class, you effectively
have a recursive template definition. e.g.
class MyBase(T)
{
static if(is(tyepeof(T.func(
{
int func() { return 42; }
}
}
- Jonathan M Davis
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
On 07/17/2012 07:23 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 14:48:32 David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 05:24:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
This code strikes me as being a bug:
class MyBase(T)
{}
class MySubA : MyBase!MySubA
{}
class MySubB : MyBase!MySubB
{}
void main()
{}
This pattern is actually quite common in C++ code, and referred
to as CRTP (curiously recurring template pattern). If you propose
to kill it, Andrei is going to get mad at you. ;)
Well, it certainly seems insane to me at first glance - particularly when you
take compile time reflection into account, since the derived classes'
definitions are now effectively recursive (so I suspect that the situation is
worse in D, since C++ doesn't have conditional compliation like D does).
The fact that it is allowed does not make the compiler's job
significantly more complicated. It is not important if the type is
passed as a template argument or referred to directly from inside the
template -- the issues are the same.
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
On 7/17/2012 12:23 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 14:48:32 David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 05:24:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
This code strikes me as being a bug:
class MyBase(T)
{}
class MySubA : MyBase!MySubA
{}
class MySubB : MyBase!MySubB
{}
void main()
{}
This pattern is actually quite common in C++ code, and referred
to as CRTP (curiously recurring template pattern). If you propose
to kill it, Andrei is going to get mad at you. ;)
Well, it certainly seems insane to me at first glance - particularly when you
take compile time reflection into account, since the derived classes'
definitions are now effectively recursive (so I suspect that the situation is
worse in D, since C++ doesn't have conditional compliation like D does). But
if it's supposed to be legal, I guess that it's suppose to be legal. I'd never
seen the idiom before, and it seemed _really_ off to me, which is why I brought
it up. But I'd have to study it in order to give an informed opinion on it.
- Jonathan M Davis
A 'proper' D port of this kind design would be to use mixins instead of
the template. They both accomplish the same thing:
The template (or mixins) are written to call functions in the user
defined type. A simple example would be the C++ WTL library: A user
defined control defines its own window style, but the template code is
responsible for creating the window, and accesses the style and class
flags from the user defined type.
The advantage is the same in both: you avoid making the interface
virtual, you still get to use some generic code.
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 14:48:32 David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 05:24:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > This code strikes me as being a bug:
> >
> >
> > class MyBase(T)
> > {}
> >
> > class MySubA : MyBase!MySubA
> > {}
> >
> > class MySubB : MyBase!MySubB
> > {}
> >
> > void main()
> > {}
> >
>
> This pattern is actually quite common in C++ code, and referred
> to as CRTP (curiously recurring template pattern). If you propose
> to kill it, Andrei is going to get mad at you. ;)
Well, it certainly seems insane to me at first glance - particularly when you
take compile time reflection into account, since the derived classes'
definitions are now effectively recursive (so I suspect that the situation is
worse in D, since C++ doesn't have conditional compliation like D does). But
if it's supposed to be legal, I guess that it's suppose to be legal. I'd never
seen the idiom before, and it seemed _really_ off to me, which is why I brought
it up. But I'd have to study it in order to give an informed opinion on it.
- Jonathan M Davis
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 05:24:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
This code strikes me as being a bug:
class MyBase(T)
{}
class MySubA : MyBase!MySubA
{}
class MySubB : MyBase!MySubB
{}
void main()
{}
This pattern is actually quite common in C++ code, and referred
to as CRTP (curiously recurring template pattern). If you propose
to kill it, Andrei is going to get mad at you. ;)
David
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
There's a thorough explanation of how "incomplete types" work in C++: http://www.drdobbs.com/the-standard-librarian-containers-of-inc/184403814 And there's some more C++ related stuff: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_50_0/doc/html/container/containers_of_incomplete_types.html I wouldn't know about D though.
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
It is indeed supposed to work, and was actually touted as a common and lauded example way back in the day. However, with the advent of this-params for templates it seems less useful now (once they've been through the ringer a little more at least). I did use this-params to great effect in Zeal, to auto-inject behavior into subclasses with the proper scoping and other concerns. The base class didn't even have to be a template itself (just the magical internals). https://github.com/csauls/zeal.d/blob/master/source/zeal/base/controller.d So, to repeat, yes it is supposed to work... but I'm not so sure it is such a good idea anymore -- assuming this-params will work on the class declaration. -- Chris NS
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 07:37:38 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: > (Not sure if MySubB was meant to demonstrate anything; it's effectively > semantically equal to MySubA.) It's a simplification of an example in this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11516066/d-inheriting-static-variables- differentiating-by-class which was itself a simplification of other code. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
On 17-07-2012 07:24, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
This code strikes me as being a bug:
class MyBase(T)
{}
class MySubA : MyBase!MySubA
{}
class MySubB : MyBase!MySubB
{}
void main()
{}
but it compiles just fine. However, given the fact that MySubA isn't even
properly defined until its base class has been defined, I don't see how it could
possibly _not_ be a bug for the base class to be templatized on it. You could
get some really weird behavior if you use compile time reflection on the
derived class in the base class definition.
Does anyone know if this is actually supposed to work? Or is it in fact a bug
like I think it is?
- Jonathan M Davis
(Not sure if MySubB was meant to demonstrate anything; it's effectively
semantically equal to MySubA.)
This code is meant to work. It doesn't actually introduce any circular
inheritance. Consider, on the other hand, this:
class A : B {}
class B : A {}
or closer to your example:
class A(T) : T {}
class B : A!B {}
The difference is that here you have direct, circular inheritance, while
in your example, the base type is merely parameterized with the deriving
type, which is perfectly legal (and trivially resolvable in semantic
analysis).
--
Alex Rønne Petersen
a...@lycus.org
http://lycus.org
Re: Is this actually supposed to be legal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiously_recurring_template_pattern
On 7/16/2012 10:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> This code strikes me as being a bug:
>
>
> class MyBase(T)
> {}
>
> class MySubA : MyBase!MySubA
> {}
>
> class MySubB : MyBase!MySubB
> {}
>
> void main()
> {}
>
>
> but it compiles just fine. However, given the fact that MySubA isn't even
> properly defined until its base class has been defined, I don't see how it
> could
> possibly _not_ be a bug for the base class to be templatized on it. You could
> get some really weird behavior if you use compile time reflection on the
> derived class in the base class definition.
>
> Does anyone know if this is actually supposed to work? Or is it in fact a bug
> like I think it is?
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>
