Hi,
I have a class which defines a nested class:
class Outer1 {
class Inner1 { }
}
Now I want to inherit from Outer1, to modify its behavior in a way
which also involves modifying the behavior of the corresponding inner
objects. My first instinct was to write
class Outer2 : Outer1 {
class
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
>> I have thought of a workaround with 'alias this':
>>
>> class Outer2 : Outer1 {
>> class Inner2 {
>> Inner1 _self;
>> alias _self this;
>> this() {
>> _self = this.outer.new Inner1();
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> This seems to wo
Hi,
The following code fails the linker, complaining about an undefined
reference to 'foo':
interface A {
private int foo();
}
class B {
int bar(A x) { return x.foo(); }
}
void main() { }
But if I remove the 'private' qualifier on 'foo', then it succeeds.
Shouldn't B.bar() be able to acc
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> Private methods are non-virtual, so I'm pretty sure they are not supposed to
> be allowed in an interface.
>
> But I suppose private could also mean private final, in which case you have
> to provide an implementation for foo in the in
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2051
Thank you! I think this answers my question completely; I just need
to change "private" to "protected". Is there a place on the web
Thanks!
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On 2011-06-02 12:59, Michael Shulman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan M Davis
> wrote:
>> > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542
>> > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/sh
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I don't really like the idea of private functions being virtual
> by default though, so maybe your suggestion would be a good one.
Speaking as a newbie with very little D experience, the idea of
private functions being non-virtual would m
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> However, given that in D, 'private' only means restricted to a
>> *module*, it's less clear to me why private functions should be
>> singled out as non-virtual. I might want certain methods to be
>> accessible only within a given module,
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> And if you don't know about NVI, having a
> virtual private function is just plain weird.
Well, it makes perfect sense to me, once given that in D, 'private'
allows access from anywhere in the same module, rather than only in
the defining
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I'd suggest opening a bug report.
Okay, will do.
> Regardless, I would have hoped that you'd get an error at compile
> time about overriding a non-virtual function if package is
> non-virtual
It appears that overriding a non-virtual, non
The bug report appears to already exist:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3258
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On 2011-06-03 14:55, Michael Shulman wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Jonathan M Davis
> wrote:
>> > And if you
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Try to compile with -w. My guess is that you will get a compiler error.
Nope.
Why does the following code fail the assertion?
class A {
void foo()
out { assert(stored is this); }
body { }
}
A stored;
class B : A {
void foo() { stored = this; }
}
void main () {
B x = new B();
x.foo();
}
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:27 AM, bearophile wrote:
>> x: 14e2fd0
>> Klass2.this: 14e2fd0
>> Klass1.this: 41d1b0
>> Klass1.stored: 14e2fd0
>
> Note how much different are the two values of the object references. They may
> even be in two different kinds of memory. Klass1.this may be in the static
14 matches
Mail list logo
