bearophile wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
Thank you for this post, that gives me a chance to talk about this topic.
What I meant was, opEquals could forward to opBinary, but if it's disallowed by
the compiler, then that's not possible.<
I just think it's overkill to restrict what functions are
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:03:37 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
Thank you for this post, that gives me a chance to talk about this topic.
What I meant was, opEquals could forward to opBinary, but if it's
disallowed by the compiler, then that's not possible.<
I just think it's
Steven Schveighoffer:
Thank you for this post, that gives me a chance to talk about this topic.
>What I meant was, opEquals could forward to opBinary, but if it's disallowed
>by the compiler, then that's not possible.<
>I just think it's overkill to restrict what functions are valid arbitrarily.
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:59:53 -0400, Trass3r wrote:
I can see one potential reason to use opBinary("==") and that is to
collect binary operator code in one place.
Currently dmd checks that and turns == into opEquals, should never
become opBinary!("==")
What I meant was, opEquals could for
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 16:12, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
(On alias this)
> Yeah, I tried to get it to work too, but it doesn't. Even something like
> this doesn't work:
>
> struct Foo {
> uint x;
> uint castToUint() { return x; }
> alias castToUint this;
> }
>
> This should work. The te
I can see one potential reason to use opBinary("==") and that is to
collect binary operator code in one place.
Currently dmd checks that and turns == into opEquals, should never become
opBinary!("==")
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:46:01 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
I think there is no restriction on what opEquals in structs.<
I think this is a hole in the specification that needs to be filled,
because I think you must be sure opEquals returns a bool.
Oh, I thought you me
Steven Schveighoffer:
>I think there is no restriction on what opEquals in structs.<
I think this is a hole in the specification that needs to be filled, because I
think you must be sure opEquals returns a bool.
>These kinds of errors are appropriate for a lint tool.<
Have you seen any good l
But that can cause bugs: it's easy for programmers to forget to use
opEquals instead of opBinary("==").
Again, opBinary and opEquals are simply functions. There is nothing
special about their existence, just about how the compiler rewrites the
operators into calling those functions. The f
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:55:41 -0400, bearophile
wrote:
In the following little programs can you help me tell apart my errors
from bugs in dmd?
I'll preface my comments with a general comment.
operator functions themselves are not, and should not be, treated
specially by the compiler. Yo
10 matches
Mail list logo
