In D is it possible to handle accessing class properties that
don't exist, similar to PHP's magic methods?
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.overloading.php#object.set
For example, the below class doesn't have the 'x' property:
class T
{
this()
{
this.x = "hello world!
On Saturday, 4 January 2014 at 19:08:45 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
In D is it possible to handle accessing class properties that
don't exist, similar to PHP's magic methods?
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.overloading.php#object.set
For example, the below class doesn't have the 'x'
On Saturday, 4 January 2014 at 19:17:31 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
OMG i've just found opDispatch!
http://dlang.org/operatoroverloading.html#Dispatch
Fantastic!
How to handle returning a value from a non-existent property?
On Saturday, 4 January 2014 at 19:19:43 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
On Saturday, 4 January 2014 at 19:17:31 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
OMG i've just found opDispatch!
http://dlang.org/operatoroverloading.html#Dispatch
Fantastic!
How to handle returning a value from a non-existent property?
On Saturday, 4 January 2014 at 19:26:50 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
Got it!
opDispatch rox, and there's all kinds of crazy stuff you can do
with it. In my dom.d, I used it for three things:
https://github.com/adamdruppe/misc-stuff-including-D-programming-language-web-stuff/blob/master/dom.d
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 07:52:11PM +, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 January 2014 at 19:26:50 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> >Got it!
>
> opDispatch rox, and there's all kinds of crazy stuff you can do with
> it. In my dom.d, I used it for three things:
[...]
Somebody has also used opDi
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:08 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Of course, these are arguably clever hacks than true, properly-motivated
> examples, but still, they exemplify what Andrei meant when he said that
> the power of opDispatch is largely still unexplored territory.
As Adam showed, it's very nice
Another simple example that have helped me tremendously when
debugging OpenGL calls. A simple dispatcher that checks
glGetError after every call.
struct GL
{
auto opDispatch(string name, Args...)(Args args)
{
enum glName = "gl" ~ name;
mixin(format("
static if(is
On 2014-01-05 14:09, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
As Adam showed, it's very nice to make some clean API (or DSL).
Another example I like is generating queries:
auto result = table.findByFirstName;
If Table has a "FirstName" field, then opDispatch will catch any
findByX and generate the related
On 01/05/14 15:36, TheFlyingFiddle wrote:
> Another simple example that have helped me tremendously when debugging OpenGL
> calls. A simple dispatcher that checks glGetError after every call.
>
> struct GL
> {
> auto opDispatch(string name, Args...)(Args args)
> {
> enum glName =
On Sunday, 5 January 2014 at 17:17:27 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:
While 'void' is not a first class type in D, there /is/ a
special
case for returning 'void' from functions - so all of the above
can
simply be written as:
struct gl {
static auto ref opDispatch(string name, Args...)(Args
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Just for the record. In Rails, that's the old, now discourage, Rails 2
> syntax.
I didn't know that, thanks. I read it during the holidays in Martin
Fowler's book on DSL, but indeed that book is from 2005, IIRC.
> In Rails 3 and later the
On 2014-01-05 22:44, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
I didn't know that, thanks. I read it during the holidays in Martin
Fowler's book on DSL, but indeed that book is from 2005, IIRC.
That's a bit old :). According to this site[1] Rails 1.0 was released in
December 2005. Rails 4.0 was released in June
>> I didn't know that, thanks. I read it during the holidays in Martin
>> Fowler's book on DSL, but indeed that book is from 2005, IIRC.
>
>
> That's a bit old :). According to this site[1] Rails 1.0 was released in
> December 2005. Rails 4.0 was released in June 2013.
Ouch, that was 2010, my bad.
On 2014-01-06 22:07, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
Ruby does have a clean syntax (though I find blocks to be a bit heavy).
I like the block syntax. It allows one to create what looks like new
statements:
loop do
# endless loop
end
I would like to have that in D as well, but with braces instead:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> I would like to have that in D as well, but with braces instead:
>
> void loop (void delegate () dg);
>
> loop {
> // endless loop
> }
What about:
void loop(void delegate() dg);
loop({
...
});
Since any block is a void delegate().
On 2014-01-07 13:22, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
What about:
void loop(void delegate() dg);
loop({
...
});
Since any block is a void delegate().
That's what we have now, and that doesn't look like a built-in statement ;)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 03:35:43PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2014-01-07 13:22, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
>
> >What about:
> >
> >void loop(void delegate() dg);
> >
> >loop({
> >...
> >
> >});
> >
> >Since any block is a void delegate().
>
> That's what we have now, and that doesn't look like
On 2014-01-07 16:58, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Y'know, I've always wanted "trailing delegate syntax":
func(x, y, z; p, q, r) {
// body
}
gets translated into:
func(p, q, r, (x, y, z) => /* body */);
Since we already have UFCS, which translates a leading fragme
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 09:18:48PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2014-01-07 16:58, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> >Y'know, I've always wanted "trailing delegate syntax":
> >
> > func(x, y, z; p, q, r) {
> > // body
> > }
> >
> >gets translated into:
> >
> > func(p, q, r, (x, y,
On 2014-01-07 21:44, H. S. Teoh wrote:
If you have a good motivating use case in favor of this addition that
can be used in a DIP, I'd vote for it.
I'm usually not good at these arguments. I mean, it would be nice to
have but I don't have any strong arguments for it. It's just syntax sugar.
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 08:32:15AM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2014-01-07 21:44, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> >I like the alias idea, so here's the revised proposal:
> >
> >1) Argumentless trailing-delegate syntax:
> >
> > // Given this declaration:
> > void foo(alias dg)();
> >
> >
On 2014-01-08 19:04, H. S. Teoh wrote:
The reason I wrote it this way is so that it parallels the foreach
construction better:
my_foreach (i; range) {
...
}
parallels:
foreach (i; range) {
...
}
I guessed that.
Keep in mind t
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:49:17AM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2014-01-08 19:04, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> >In fact, we can already almost get the desired syntax in the current
> >language:
> >
> > /* Current D already supports this: */
> > range.my_foreach!((i,j) {
> > /*
On 2014-01-09 18:57, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I'm afraid that this might become ambiguous, for example:
int* gun(...) {...}
func (x==0)
*gun(y);
Does the second statement mean `func!(() => *gun(y))(x==0)`, or does it
mean `func(x==0) * gun(y)`? While it's not hard to
25 matches
Mail list logo
