Re: opAddAssign still works
bearophile wrote: > Pelle: >> Not yet, it's not. To compile something that's deprecated, you will need >> the -d switch. > > That's for user code marked with 'deprecated': > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/attribute.html#deprecated > I don't think it is designed to work with compiler/language features too. > > The D1 compiler has a switch (-v1), that's missing in D2, for deprecated > compiler features, maybe something similar will be put back. > > Bye, > bearophile Actually the switch has nothing to do with deprecation. Originally D2 was developed and released as the same binary as D1. If you wanted to compile for version 1 you passed the -v1 switch, otherwise you were compiling version 2. Don't ask me why the switch is still there.
Re: opAddAssign still works
On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:14:37 -0400, Simen kjaeraas wrote: Steven Schveighoffer wrote: But this function never gets called. I found out recently that template functions are not allowed in interfaces, which makes it impossible to use the new operator overloads on interfaces. The problem is however, that template functions can't be virtual, and thus can't be stuffed into interfaces. Mayhaps however, specific instantiations could be. Of course, implementing some kind of dynamic vtable, that could be updated at link-time, would make many kinds of magic possible, and might be a solution. No idea how possible this is, though. It is planned for interfaces to be able to contain template member functions, those functions would not be virtual or overridable, and would need to be expressed completely in terms of the interface. They are like final interface functions. I assumed this was already done, as it was a mitigating factor when fleshing out the new operator design that you could simulate previous behavior by creating a virtual function that then was called by your template operator function. -Steve
Re: opAddAssign still works
Steven Schveighoffer wrote: But this function never gets called. I found out recently that template functions are not allowed in interfaces, which makes it impossible to use the new operator overloads on interfaces. The problem is however, that template functions can't be virtual, and thus can't be stuffed into interfaces. Mayhaps however, specific instantiations could be. Of course, implementing some kind of dynamic vtable, that could be updated at link-time, would make many kinds of magic possible, and might be a solution. No idea how possible this is, though. -- Simen
Re: opAddAssign still works
On Tue, 11 May 2010 08:52:47 -0400, Trass3r wrote: I found out recently that template functions are not allowed in interfaces, which makes it impossible to use the new operator overloads on interfaces. Wow that should find its way into bugzilla. Already there :) http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4174 It was the minimal case I was working on creating where I discovered the old operator functions still work. -Steve
Re: opAddAssign still works
> I found out recently that template > functions are not allowed in interfaces, which makes it impossible to use > the new operator overloads on interfaces. Wow that should find its way into bugzilla.
Re: opAddAssign still works
On Mon, 10 May 2010 19:38:53 -0400, Trass3r wrote:
Yeah it still works for compatibility reasons but is deprecated.
Yeah, but should the old method override the new one?
I assumed one nice thing about "backwards compatibility" is you could do
something like this:
T opOpAssign(string op)(T other) if (op == "+=")
{
return opAddAssign(other);
}
But this function never gets called. I found out recently that template
functions are not allowed in interfaces, which makes it impossible to use
the new operator overloads on interfaces.
-Steve
Re: opAddAssign still works
Pelle: > Not yet, it's not. To compile something that's deprecated, you will need > the -d switch. That's for user code marked with 'deprecated': http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/attribute.html#deprecated I don't think it is designed to work with compiler/language features too. The D1 compiler has a switch (-v1), that's missing in D2, for deprecated compiler features, maybe something similar will be put back. Bye, bearophile
Re: opAddAssign still works
On 05/11/2010 01:38 AM, Trass3r wrote: Yeah it still works for compatibility reasons but is deprecated. Not yet, it's not. To compile something that's deprecated, you will need the -d switch. Right now, both are allowed, but the old one is scheduled for deprecation and presumably later removal. :)
Re: opAddAssign still works
Yeah it still works for compatibility reasons but is deprecated.
Re: opAddAssign still works
On Mon, 10 May 2010 17:58:37 -0400, Ali Çehreli wrote: Steven Schveighoffer wrote: I just made a startling discovery: the old operator overload routines still work in 2.045 Is this intended? I don't know, but I am happy that they still work. I haven't gotten around to changing my code to use the new syntax yet. :) I hope the old syntax remains as a deprecated feature and stays supported for the next 15 years or so... :) Well, I've been doing it for dcollections, and I came across this blocker: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4174 -Steve
Re: opAddAssign still works
Steven Schveighoffer wrote: I just made a startling discovery: the old operator overload routines still work in 2.045 Is this intended? I don't know, but I am happy that they still work. I haven't gotten around to changing my code to use the new syntax yet. :) I hope the old syntax remains as a deprecated feature and stays supported for the next 15 years or so... :) Ali
opAddAssign still works
I just made a startling discovery: the old operator overload routines
still work in 2.045
Is this intended?
struct S
{
int x;
S opAddAssign(ref const S other)
{
x += other.x;
return this;
}
}
void foo(S s)
{
s += s;
}
generates no error.
And in fact, neither does this:
struct S
{
int x;
S opAddAssign(ref const S other)
{
x += other.x;
return this;
}
S opOpAssign(string op)(ref const S other) if (op == "+=")
{
static assert(0, "fail!");
}
}
void foo(S s)
{
s += s;
}
But if I only have the template version, it does use the template.
-Steve
