On Saturday, 31 October 2015 at 16:55:32 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Saturday, 31 October 2015 at 16:38:58 UTC, bitwise wrote:
@synthesized void accept(this This)(Visitor v) {
v.visit(this);
}
I meant to remove "(this This)" as you don't need it if you can
just do "typeof(this)" in the functi
On Saturday, 31 October 2015 at 16:38:58 UTC, bitwise wrote:
@synthesized void accept(this This)(Visitor v) {
v.visit(this);
}
I meant to remove "(this This)" as you don't need it if you can
just do "typeof(this)" in the function body.
@synthesized void accept(Visitor v) {
v.visit(t
On Saturday, 31 October 2015 at 02:39:19 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Friday, 30 October 2015 at 21:38:40 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 01:14:35 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 00:11:06 UTC, Tofu Ninja
wrote:
[...]
Actually never mind, what I just sa
On Friday, 30 October 2015 at 21:38:40 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 01:14:35 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 00:11:06 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
[...]
Actually never mind, what I just said was basically auto
override for this() so its not really any
On Friday, 30 October 2015 at 21:38:40 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 01:14:35 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 00:11:06 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
[...]
Actually never mind, what I just said was basically auto
override for this() so its not really any
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 01:14:35 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 00:11:06 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
[...]
Actually never mind, what I just said was basically auto
override for this() so its not really any different. And it is
kinda limited with some problems.
So
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 17:32:22 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
[...]
class Base(T) : IBase
[...]
I actually did this before, I can confidently say how damn ugly
and all over bad it is. Please no.
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 17:32:22 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 13:54:17 UTC, bitwise wrote:
[...]
Just sprinkle some D magic ontop.. voilà DRTP is born ;)
template Dynamic(T)
{
static if(is(T == U!V, alias U, V))
alias Dynamic = Dynamic!V;
else
a
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 13:54:17 UTC, bitwise wrote:
class One : Base!One { }
class Two : Base!Two { }
Doesn't work with multiple levels of inheritance...
Bit
Just sprinkle some D magic ontop.. voilà DRTP is born ;)
template Dynamic(T)
{
static if(is(T == U!V, alias U, V))
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 08:27:04 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 01:52:16 UTC, bitwise wrote:
[...]
There's a famous idiom from the C++ world which solves this,
google CRTP...
... or see the quick hack below.
('final' is optional, the interface is also optional.
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 08:27:04 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
class Base(T) : IBase
{
final string Name()
{
return typeof(this).stringof;
}
}
class One : Base!One { }
class Two : Base!Two { }
Meh, sorry, ofcourse it should be:
return typeof(cast(T)this).stringof;
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 01:52:16 UTC, bitwise wrote:
My argument though, is that a virtual function isn't needed.
I'm not sure if this is sufficient for your use cases, but if I
could do the this, I would have everything I need:
struct MyInfo { string name; }
static MyInfo[string] stuf
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 01:14:35 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 00:11:06 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
[...]
Actually never mind, what I just said was basically auto
override for this() so its not really any different. And it is
kinda limited with some problems.
My
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 00:11:06 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
[...]
Actually never mind, what I just said was basically auto override
for this() so its not really any different. And it is kinda
limited with some problems.
On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 21:48:36 UTC, bitwise wrote:
There is nothing spooky going on here. The declaration would be
clearly annotated with auto override, or whatever keyword was
chosen. If you were inheriting from a class, and didn't like
its auto overrides, you could manually overrid
On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 20:04:44 UTC, Shammah Chancellor
wrote:
On Monday, 26 October 2015 at 23:25:49 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So we have TemplateThisParameters methods which are cool but
have some drawbacks.
They are templates so they are implicitly non-virtual and are
called based on
On 10/27/2015 12:25 AM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
Thoughts?
Any one else needed this before?
Yes, similar proposals have come up multiple times.
It is better if it is more general though. The super class should be
able to mix arbitrary declarations into the subclass scope.
On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 20:04:44 UTC, Shammah Chancellor
wrote:
This kind of magic is detrimental to being able to reason about
the code you are writing. If libraries do this for example,
there's too much spooky action-at-a-distance occurring. Having
explicit mixins is the appropriat
On Monday, 26 October 2015 at 23:25:49 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
So we have TemplateThisParameters methods which are cool but
have some drawbacks.
They are templates so they are implicitly non-virtual and are
called based on the type of the reference.
It would be very nice to be able to auto gener
On Wednesday, 28 October 2015 at 15:13:40 UTC, bitwise wrote:
[...]
I have to disagree with this. A function's meaning should not
change because it's definition is removed.
I suppose you are right.
[...]
A.foo() or B.foo() seems to work instead of super.super.foo()
or super.foo()
Ah
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 23:15:39 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 22:23:15 UTC, bitwise wrote:
[...]
-H also keeps the body of template functions so I would assume
it would treat auto overrides the same.
Well.. It's not going to just work. Dmd will surely have
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 23:15:39 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
An alternative solution could be that if you provide a header
to a class and don't include the auto override body, then the
auto override functionality is removed and the method is
treated as a regular method from that point on(with
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 22:23:15 UTC, bitwise wrote:
[...]
I just did a test for this. Using dmd's -H flag to generate
header files, the bodies of member functions are removed. If
you link a static library containing the compiled class though,
everything will work, and you can still inh
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 20:05:17 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 14:47:03 UTC, bitwise wrote:
[...]
Is there ever a chance the auto override definition would not
be available, I think the class chain all the way up to Object
always needs to be available at compil
On 2015-10-27 09:05, Tofu Ninja wrote:
The method is instantiated when the subclass is defined so T would
obviously be right on hand. Sub-classing a class with an auto override
method would implicitly instantiate and override the method. Calling
a.bar() would have no problems because bar would b
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 14:47:03 UTC, bitwise wrote:
[...]
Going a bit further, I think you could override an auto
override fun too manually as well. This would be helpful both
for adding additional functionality, and as a fallback if the
definition of the auto override function was not
On Monday, 26 October 2015 at 23:25:49 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
I know this has basically no chance of ever actually being
added because that is the way of all "I want feature X"
threads, but I thought I would post this anyways because I seem
to want it constantly.
Hey, that is what I needed ye
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 14:21:12 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 07:52:27 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2015-10-27 00:25, Tofu Ninja wrote:
[...]
I don't think this is possible. Think of code looking like
this:
// Imagine not having access to the source code "crea
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 07:52:27 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2015-10-27 00:25, Tofu Ninja wrote:
I know this has basically no chance of ever actually being
added because
that is the way of all "I want feature X" threads, but I
thought I would
post this anyways because I seem to want i
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 07:52:27 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
[...]
I don't think this is possible. Think of code looking like this:
// Imagine not having access to the source code "createA"
A createA()
{
new B;
}
void inspectA(A a)
{
a.bar();
}
How should the compiler know that w
On 2015-10-27 00:25, Tofu Ninja wrote:
I know this has basically no chance of ever actually being added because
that is the way of all "I want feature X" threads, but I thought I would
post this anyways because I seem to want it constantly.
So we have TemplateThisParameters methods which are coo
On Monday, 26 October 2015 at 23:25:49 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
I know this has basically no chance of ever actually being
added because that is the way of all "I want feature X"
threads, but I thought I would post this anyways because I seem
to want it constantly.
[...]
Stole the words right
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 00:27:46 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
...
crap, copy paste error
change the main to
void main()
{
A a = new A();
a.foo(); // prints nothing
a.bar(); // prints nothing
B b = new B();
b.foo(); // prints X
b.bar(); // print
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 00:07:36 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
I don't understand all uses of the request but typeid() returns
a TypeInfo reference, which is about the actual type of an
object. The following change produces the expected output in
this case (except, it has the added module name
On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 00:07:36 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 10/26/2015 04:25 PM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
##
class A
{
void foo(this T)() { writeln(T.stringof); }
void bar(auto override this T)() { writeln(T.stringof); }
}
class B : A {}
void main()
On 10/26/2015 04:25 PM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
##
class A
{
void foo(this T)() { writeln(T.stringof); }
void bar(auto override this T)() { writeln(T.stringof); }
}
class B : A {}
void main()
{
A a = new A();
a.foo(); // prints "A"
a.bar()
I know this has basically no chance of ever actually being added
because that is the way of all "I want feature X" threads, but I
thought I would post this anyways because I seem to want it
constantly.
So we have TemplateThisParameters methods which are cool but have
some drawbacks.
They are
37 matches
Mail list logo
