On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:42:30 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 09:54:44 Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-02-03 12:43:12 -0500, Daniel Gibson
said:
> Am 03.02.2011 15:57, schrieb Michel Fortin:
>> On 2011-02-02 23:48:15 -0500, %u said:
>>> When implemented, will un
On 2011-02-03 14:47:26 -0500, Jonathan M Davis said:
I take it then that you're suggesting that the compiler automatically
select the
member function when the conflicting free function is a separate module?
No, I haven't thought about that yet. That's one possibility, but it
makes silent hi
On 2011-02-03 15:50:17 -0500, spir said:
How can you propose this, Michel? Complexify the language, and any
implementation, just for a non-feature that makes code very hard to
decode, by requiring a double mental rewriting operation:
foo(i) --> this.foo(i) --> foo(this,i)
what advantage
On 02/03/2011 10:39 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:05:01 -0500, spir wrote:
On 02/03/2011 08:43 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
The more I think about it (and read discussions like this), the more I think
that uniform call syntax should only be allowed for types which
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:05:01 -0500, spir wrote:
On 02/03/2011 08:43 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
The more I think about it (and read discussions like this), the more I
think
that uniform call syntax should only be allowed for types which cannot
declare
member functions (arrays, primitive
On 02/03/2011 08:43 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
The more I think about it (and read discussions like this), the more I think
that uniform call syntax should only be allowed for types which cannot declare
member functions (arrays, primitives, enums, etc.). Otherwise, we introduce
new ambiguit
On 02/03/2011 08:15 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-02-03 13:42:30 -0500, Jonathan M Davis said:
Except that if you have both a member function foo and a free function foo, how
can you tell the compiler which to use?
Indeed, that's a problem. The solution is to sidestep the problem. :-)
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:15:11 Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2011-02-03 13:42:30 -0500, Jonathan M Davis said:
> > On Thursday, February 03, 2011 09:54:44 Michel Fortin wrote:
> >> On 2011-02-03 12:43:12 -0500, Daniel Gibson said:
> >>> Am 03.02.2011 15:57, schrieb Michel Fortin:
> On 2
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:15:11 -0500, Michel Fortin
wrote:
On 2011-02-03 13:42:30 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
said:
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 09:54:44 Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-02-03 12:43:12 -0500, Daniel Gibson
said:
Am 03.02.2011 15:57, schrieb Michel Fortin:
On 2011-02-02 23:4
Michel Fortin:
> We just have to disallow declaring a module-level function and a
> class-level function with the same name and the same parameter types
> (including 'this' in the parameters).
No more special cases in D, please.
Bye,
bearophile
On 2011-02-03 13:42:30 -0500, Jonathan M Davis said:
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 09:54:44 Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-02-03 12:43:12 -0500, Daniel Gibson said:
Am 03.02.2011 15:57, schrieb Michel Fortin:
On 2011-02-02 23:48:15 -0500, %u said:
When implemented, will uniform call syntax
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 09:54:44 Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2011-02-03 12:43:12 -0500, Daniel Gibson said:
> > Am 03.02.2011 15:57, schrieb Michel Fortin:
> >> On 2011-02-02 23:48:15 -0500, %u said:
> >>> When implemented, will uniform call syntax work for the "this"
> >>> object even if no
On 2011-02-03 12:43:12 -0500, Daniel Gibson said:
Am 03.02.2011 15:57, schrieb Michel Fortin:
On 2011-02-02 23:48:15 -0500, %u said:
When implemented, will uniform call syntax work for the "this"
object even if not specified?
For example, will foo() get called in the following example?
vo
Am 03.02.2011 15:57, schrieb Michel Fortin:
> On 2011-02-02 23:48:15 -0500, %u said:
>
>> When implemented, will uniform call syntax work for the "this"
>> object even if not specified?
>>
>> For example, will foo() get called in the following example?
>>
>> void foo(A a, int b) {}
>>
>> class A
%u:
> When implemented, will uniform call syntax work for the "this"
> object even if not specified?
My impression of this situation is that uniform call syntax is a little syntax
improvement that may cause big troubles.
Bye,
bearophile
On 2011-02-02 23:48:15 -0500, %u said:
When implemented, will uniform call syntax work for the "this"
object even if not specified?
For example, will foo() get called in the following example?
void foo(A a, int b) {}
class A {
void test() {
this.foo(10);
foo(10);
}
}
On 02/03/2011 05:48 AM, %u wrote:
When implemented, will uniform call syntax work for the "this"
object even if not specified?
For example, will foo() get called in the following example?
void foo(A a, int b) {}
class A {
void test() {
this.foo(10);
foo(10);
}
}
T
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 20:48:15 %u wrote:
> When implemented, will uniform call syntax work for the "this"
> object even if not specified?
>
> For example, will foo() get called in the following example?
>
> void foo(A a, int b) {}
>
> class A {
> void test() {
> this.foo(10);
When implemented, will uniform call syntax work for the "this"
object even if not specified?
For example, will foo() get called in the following example?
void foo(A a, int b) {}
class A {
void test() {
this.foo(10);
foo(10);
}
}
Thanks
19 matches
Mail list logo
