Re: tdpl: partial ordering of functions: conflict error
On 18/01/12 04:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 02:33:25 Jerome BENOIT wrote:
And I cannot figure why :-(
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
As a workaround, templatize the last function by changing its signature to
int[] find()(int[] longer, int[] shorter)
actually it does not work either: gdmd gives an other error message now.
T[] find(T, E)(T[] haystack, E needle)
if (is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) {
while (haystack.length 0 haystack[0] != needle) {
haystack = haystack[1 .. $];
}
return haystack;
}
TL[] find(TL, TS)(TL[] longer, TS[] shorter)
if (is(typeof(longer[0 .. 1] == shorter) : bool)) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
int[] find()(int[] longer, int[] shorter) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
unittest {
// Test the introduced overloads
long[] a1 = [ 6, 1, 2, 3 ];
long[] a2 = [ 1 , 2 ];
int[] b1 = [ 6, 1, 2, 3 ];
int[] b2 = [ 1 , 2 ];
assert(find(a1, a2) == a1[1 .. $]);
assert(find(a1, b2) == a1[1 .. $]);
assert(find(b1, b2) == b1[1 .. $]);
}
void main() {}
The message is now:
searching_05.d:34: Error: template searching_05.find(T,E) if
(is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) find(T,E) if (is(typeof(haystack[0]
!= needle) == bool)) matches more than one template declaration,
searching_05.d(9):find(TL,TS) if (is(typeof(longer[0..1] == shorter) : bool))
and searching_05.d(18):find()
Is partial ordering really supported ?
Jerome
- Jonathan M Davis
Re: tdpl: partial ordering of functions: conflict error
On 01/18/2012 02:32 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
On 18/01/12 04:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 02:33:25 Jerome BENOIT wrote:
And I cannot figure why :-(
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
As a workaround, templatize the last function by changing its
signature to
int[] find()(int[] longer, int[] shorter)
actually it does not work either: gdmd gives an other error message now.
T[] find(T, E)(T[] haystack, E needle)
if (is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) {
while (haystack.length 0 haystack[0] != needle) {
haystack = haystack[1 .. $];
}
return haystack;
}
TL[] find(TL, TS)(TL[] longer, TS[] shorter)
if (is(typeof(longer[0 .. 1] == shorter) : bool)) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
int[] find()(int[] longer, int[] shorter) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
unittest {
// Test the introduced overloads
long[] a1 = [ 6, 1, 2, 3 ];
long[] a2 = [ 1 , 2 ];
int[] b1 = [ 6, 1, 2, 3 ];
int[] b2 = [ 1 , 2 ];
assert(find(a1, a2) == a1[1 .. $]);
assert(find(a1, b2) == a1[1 .. $]);
assert(find(b1, b2) == b1[1 .. $]);
}
void main() {}
The message is now:
searching_05.d:34: Error: template searching_05.find(T,E) if
(is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) find(T,E) if
(is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) matches more than one
template declaration, searching_05.d(9):find(TL,TS) if
(is(typeof(longer[0..1] == shorter) : bool)) and searching_05.d(18):find()
Is partial ordering really supported ?
Yes it is, and your code snippet indeed compiles on my machine. Are you
maybe using an outdated version of the compiler?
Re: tdpl: partial ordering of functions: conflict error
On 01/18/2012 04:57 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 01/18/2012 02:32 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
On 18/01/12 04:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 02:33:25 Jerome BENOIT wrote:
And I cannot figure why :-(
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
As a workaround, templatize the last function by changing its
signature to
int[] find()(int[] longer, int[] shorter)
actually it does not work either: gdmd gives an other error message now.
T[] find(T, E)(T[] haystack, E needle)
if (is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) {
while (haystack.length 0 haystack[0] != needle) {
haystack = haystack[1 .. $];
}
return haystack;
}
TL[] find(TL, TS)(TL[] longer, TS[] shorter)
if (is(typeof(longer[0 .. 1] == shorter) : bool)) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
int[] find()(int[] longer, int[] shorter) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
unittest {
// Test the introduced overloads
long[] a1 = [ 6, 1, 2, 3 ];
long[] a2 = [ 1 , 2 ];
int[] b1 = [ 6, 1, 2, 3 ];
int[] b2 = [ 1 , 2 ];
assert(find(a1, a2) == a1[1 .. $]);
assert(find(a1, b2) == a1[1 .. $]);
assert(find(b1, b2) == b1[1 .. $]);
}
void main() {}
The message is now:
searching_05.d:34: Error: template searching_05.find(T,E) if
(is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) find(T,E) if
(is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) matches more than one
template declaration, searching_05.d(9):find(TL,TS) if
(is(typeof(longer[0..1] == shorter) : bool)) and
searching_05.d(18):find()
Is partial ordering really supported ?
Yes it is, and your code snippet indeed compiles on my machine. Are you
maybe using an outdated version of the compiler?
Nevermind, I forgot to pass the -unittest switch. It indeed gives that
error. The reason it still does not compile is that the workaround
proposed by Jonathan has slightly different semantics than it would have
if the compiler already supported overloading of functions against
function templates.
If exactly one of two equally good matched functions is a templated one,
the other one is chosen. Now that you have templated the second
function, both are an equally good match and both are templated.
If you change the last signature to
int[] find(TL:int[], TS:int[])(TL longer, TS shorter)
It will compile. However, if TL or TS are user-defined types with an
alias this of type int[], the semantics are still different. I think
this bug needs special attention.
Re: tdpl: partial ordering of functions: conflict error
On 18/01/12 17:07, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 01/18/2012 04:57 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 01/18/2012 02:32 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
On 18/01/12 04:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 02:33:25 Jerome BENOIT wrote:
And I cannot figure why :-(
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
As a workaround, templatize the last function by changing its
signature to
int[] find()(int[] longer, int[] shorter)
actually it does not work either: gdmd gives an other error message now.
T[] find(T, E)(T[] haystack, E needle)
if (is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) {
while (haystack.length 0 haystack[0] != needle) {
haystack = haystack[1 .. $];
}
return haystack;
}
TL[] find(TL, TS)(TL[] longer, TS[] shorter)
if (is(typeof(longer[0 .. 1] == shorter) : bool)) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
int[] find()(int[] longer, int[] shorter) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
unittest {
// Test the introduced overloads
long[] a1 = [ 6, 1, 2, 3 ];
long[] a2 = [ 1 , 2 ];
int[] b1 = [ 6, 1, 2, 3 ];
int[] b2 = [ 1 , 2 ];
assert(find(a1, a2) == a1[1 .. $]);
assert(find(a1, b2) == a1[1 .. $]);
assert(find(b1, b2) == b1[1 .. $]);
}
void main() {}
The message is now:
searching_05.d:34: Error: template searching_05.find(T,E) if
(is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) find(T,E) if
(is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) matches more than one
template declaration, searching_05.d(9):find(TL,TS) if
(is(typeof(longer[0..1] == shorter) : bool)) and
searching_05.d(18):find()
Is partial ordering really supported ?
Yes it is, and your code snippet indeed compiles on my machine. Are you
maybe using an outdated version of the compiler?
Nevermind, I forgot to pass the -unittest switch. It indeed gives that error.
The reason it still does not compile is that the workaround proposed by
Jonathan has slightly different semantics than it would have if the compiler
already supported overloading of functions against function templates.
If exactly one of two equally good matched functions is a templated one, the
other one is chosen.
So the D code in my first post may work and thus the workaround is not
necessary.
For information, I use gdc on a Debian Testing box.
Now that you have templated the second function, both are an equally good
match and both are templated.
If you change the last signature to
int[] find(TL:int[], TS:int[])(TL longer, TS shorter)
It will compile. However, if TL or TS are user-defined types with an alias this
of type int[], the semantics are still different. I think this bug needs
special attention.
Re: tdpl: partial ordering of functions: conflict error
On 01/18/2012 05:40 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
On 18/01/12 17:07, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 01/18/2012 04:57 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 01/18/2012 02:32 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
On 18/01/12 04:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 02:33:25 Jerome BENOIT wrote:
And I cannot figure why :-(
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
As a workaround, templatize the last function by changing its
signature to
int[] find()(int[] longer, int[] shorter)
actually it does not work either: gdmd gives an other error message
now.
T[] find(T, E)(T[] haystack, E needle)
if (is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) {
while (haystack.length 0 haystack[0] != needle) {
haystack = haystack[1 .. $];
}
return haystack;
}
TL[] find(TL, TS)(TL[] longer, TS[] shorter)
if (is(typeof(longer[0 .. 1] == shorter) : bool)) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
int[] find()(int[] longer, int[] shorter) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
unittest {
// Test the introduced overloads
long[] a1 = [ 6, 1, 2, 3 ];
long[] a2 = [ 1 , 2 ];
int[] b1 = [ 6, 1, 2, 3 ];
int[] b2 = [ 1 , 2 ];
assert(find(a1, a2) == a1[1 .. $]);
assert(find(a1, b2) == a1[1 .. $]);
assert(find(b1, b2) == b1[1 .. $]);
}
void main() {}
The message is now:
searching_05.d:34: Error: template searching_05.find(T,E) if
(is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) find(T,E) if
(is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) matches more than one
template declaration, searching_05.d(9):find(TL,TS) if
(is(typeof(longer[0..1] == shorter) : bool)) and
searching_05.d(18):find()
Is partial ordering really supported ?
Yes it is, and your code snippet indeed compiles on my machine. Are you
maybe using an outdated version of the compiler?
Nevermind, I forgot to pass the -unittest switch. It indeed gives that
error. The reason it still does not compile is that the workaround
proposed by Jonathan has slightly different semantics than it would
have if the compiler already supported overloading of functions
against function templates.
If exactly one of two equally good matched functions is a templated
one, the other one is chosen.
So the D code in my first post may work and thus the workaround is not
necessary.
The language does not mandate the workaround, but the workaround is
necessary until the compiler is fixed.
Re: tdpl: partial ordering of functions: conflict error
On 18/01/12 18:05, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 01/18/2012 05:40 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
On 18/01/12 17:07, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 01/18/2012 04:57 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 01/18/2012 02:32 PM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
On 18/01/12 04:36, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 02:33:25 Jerome BENOIT wrote:
And I cannot figure why :-(
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
As a workaround, templatize the last function by changing its
signature to
int[] find()(int[] longer, int[] shorter)
actually it does not work either: gdmd gives an other error message
now.
T[] find(T, E)(T[] haystack, E needle)
if (is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) {
while (haystack.length 0 haystack[0] != needle) {
haystack = haystack[1 .. $];
}
return haystack;
}
TL[] find(TL, TS)(TL[] longer, TS[] shorter)
if (is(typeof(longer[0 .. 1] == shorter) : bool)) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
int[] find()(int[] longer, int[] shorter) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
unittest {
// Test the introduced overloads
long[] a1 = [ 6, 1, 2, 3 ];
long[] a2 = [ 1 , 2 ];
int[] b1 = [ 6, 1, 2, 3 ];
int[] b2 = [ 1 , 2 ];
assert(find(a1, a2) == a1[1 .. $]);
assert(find(a1, b2) == a1[1 .. $]);
assert(find(b1, b2) == b1[1 .. $]);
}
void main() {}
The message is now:
searching_05.d:34: Error: template searching_05.find(T,E) if
(is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) find(T,E) if
(is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) matches more than one
template declaration, searching_05.d(9):find(TL,TS) if
(is(typeof(longer[0..1] == shorter) : bool)) and
searching_05.d(18):find()
Is partial ordering really supported ?
Yes it is, and your code snippet indeed compiles on my machine. Are you
maybe using an outdated version of the compiler?
Nevermind, I forgot to pass the -unittest switch. It indeed gives that
error. The reason it still does not compile is that the workaround
proposed by Jonathan has slightly different semantics than it would
have if the compiler already supported overloading of functions
against function templates.
If exactly one of two equally good matched functions is a templated
one, the other one is chosen.
So the D code in my first post may work and thus the workaround is not
necessary.
The language does not mandate the workaround, but the workaround is necessary
until the compiler is fixed.
Thanks for the precision. So I will move to the next section and come back to
this part when the compiler is fix:
I guess it will be fixed for the next release as it sounds as an important bug.
Jerome
Re: tdpl: partial ordering of functions: conflict error
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 21:35:44 Jerome BENOIT wrote: Thanks for the precision. So I will move to the next section and come back to this part when the compiler is fix: I guess it will be fixed for the next release as it sounds as an important bug. I don't know. It's been a bug for a long time. However, there has been push recently to try and get the known bugs with regards to TDPL fixed, and this is definitely on the list. So, I would expect it to be fixed relatively soon, but it may not be fixed by the next release. - Jonathan M Davis
tdpl: partial ordering of functions: conflict error
Hello List:
On my box, the following D source, inspired by the subsection 5.5.2 of tDpl,
arises a `template conflict':
-
T[] find(T, E)(T[] haystack, E needle)
if (is(typeof(haystack[0] != needle) == bool)) {
while (haystack.length 0 haystack[0] != needle) {
haystack = haystack[1 .. $];
}
return haystack;
}
TL[] find(TL, TS)(TL[] longer, TS[] shorter)
if (is(typeof(longer[0 .. 1] == shorter) : bool)) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
int[] find(int[] longer, int[] shorter) {
while (longer.length = shorter.length) {
if (longer[0 .. shorter.length] == shorter) break;
longer=longer[1 .. $];
}
return longer;
}
unittest {
long[] a1 = [ 6, 1, 2, 3 ];
int[] a2 = [ 1 , 2 ];
assert(find(a1, a2) == a1[1 .. $]);
}
void main() {}
-
And I cannot figure why :-(
Thanks in advance for any help,
Jerome
Re: tdpl: partial ordering of functions: conflict error
On Wednesday, January 18, 2012 02:33:25 Jerome BENOIT wrote: And I cannot figure why :-( http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528 As a workaround, templatize the last function by changing its signature to int[] find()(int[] longer, int[] shorter) - Jonathan M Davis
