• Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> Sep 14 2004
• kinghajj <kinghajj_member pathlink.com> Sep 14 2004
• Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> Sep 14 2004
• Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> Sep 14 2004
• "Vathix" <vathixSpamFix dprogramming.com> Sep 14 2004
• Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> Sep 14 2004
• Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> Sep 15 2004
• Arcane Jill <Arcane_member pathlink.com> Sep 15 2004

Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:

look at this:

return target.opCmp((cast(ProjectTarget)object).getTarget());

makes no sense...

for the new guys - here is how it should be:

return target.opCmp(object.castTo(ProjectTarget).getTarget());

this was discussed before and Walter is not interested at all.
save your typing for better battles...

Ant

kinghajj <kinghajj_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <pan.2004.09.15.02.26.07.97659 yahoo.ca>, Ant says...
look at this:

return target.opCmp((cast(ProjectTarget)object).getTarget());

makes no sense...

for the new guys - here is how it should be:

return target.opCmp(object.castTo(ProjectTarget).getTarget());

this was discussed before and Walter is not interested at all.
save your typing for better battles...

Ant


programming language, IMO... I guess as long as I had a choice on which method
to use, I'd be OK with it.

Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:

Ant wrote:
 look at this:
 
 return target.opCmp((cast(ProjectTarget)object).getTarget());
 
 makes no sense...
 
 for the new guys - here is how it should be:
 
 return target.opCmp(object.castTo(ProjectTarget).getTarget());


Why?  The present syntax cannot be confused for anything but a cast, by 
either a human or a computer.

 this was discussed before and Walter is not interested at all.
 save your typing for better battles...


So why bring it up?

  -- andy

Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:24:54 -0700, Andy Friesen wrote:

 Ant wrote:
 look at this:
 
 return target.opCmp((cast(ProjectTarget)object).getTarget());
 
 makes no sense...
 
 for the new guys - here is how it should be:
 
 return target.opCmp(object.castTo(ProjectTarget).getTarget());


 Why?  The present syntax cannot be confused for anything but a cast, by 
 either a human or a computer.
 
 this was discussed before and Walter is not interested at all.
 save your typing for better battles...


 So why bring it up?
 
   -- andy


because I just had to type that stupid line.

Ant

"Vathix" <vathixSpamFix dprogramming.com> writes:

Just messing around...

template castTo()
{
   template castTo(To)
   {
      To castTo() { return cast(To)this; }
   }
}
class Foo
{
   mixin castTo;
   void printName() { printf("Foo\n"); }
}
class Bar: Foo
{
   void printName() { printf("Bar\n"); }
}
int main()
{
   Foo f = new Bar;
   Bar b = f.castTo!(Bar);
   b.printName();
   return 0;
}

Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:04:57 -0400, Vathix wrote:

 Just messing around...
 
 template castTo()




nice! now we just need to be able to provide our Object class
instead of using the predefined.

Ant

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Ant wrote:

 On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:04:57 -0400, Vathix wrote:
 
 Just messing around...

 template castTo()


 ...
 
 nice! now we just need to be able to provide our Object class
 instead of using the predefined.


If it's going to be useful for generic programming, it'll need to be a 
defined method of everything, not just Object.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Arcane Jill <Arcane_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <pan.2004.09.15.02.26.07.97659 yahoo.ca>, Ant says...
look at this:

return target.opCmp((cast(ProjectTarget)object).getTarget());

makes no sense...


..and it will segfault/access-violate if object is not some subclass of
ProjectTarget. May I suggest the code should instead be:

#    ProjectTarget t = cast(ProjectTarget) object;
#    return (t === null) ? 0 : opCmp(t.getTarget);

or something similar.
Arcane Jill