• "Jeroen van Bemmel" <someone somewhere.com> Jun 07 2004
• Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> Jun 07 2004
• J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> Jun 07 2004
• Arcane Jill <Arcane_member pathlink.com> Jun 08 2004
• Norbert Nemec <Norbert.Nemec gmx.de> Jun 09 2004

"Jeroen van Bemmel" <someone somewhere.com> writes:

Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object, 
wouldn't it make sense to allow:

x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value?

Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 07:58:01 +0200, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:

 Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object, 
 wouldn't it make sense to allow:
 
 x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value?


obviously,
but this was discussed before and rejected.

Ant

J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:

Ant wrote:
 On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 07:58:01 +0200, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
 
 
Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object, 
wouldn't it make sense to allow:

x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value?


 
 obviously,
 but this was discussed before and rejected.
 
 Ant


It has been mentioned before. It looks like a fine suggestion to me, but 
I don't care enough about it to fight for it. I like the cast(int) x 
syntax. I think that's good enough.

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

Arcane Jill <Arcane_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <ca3kiu$2r17$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Jeroen van Bemmel says...
Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object, 
wouldn't it make sense to allow:

x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value?


Sure. Another nice one is (one of the many ways that) C++ does it:

        int(x)


That to me is the ultimate in simplicity, and it might even call a constructor
in the case of a class. However, I, too, like Walter's approach, so I'm happy to
leave things as they are.

Jill

Norbert Nemec <Norbert.Nemec gmx.de> writes:

Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:

 Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object,
 wouldn't it make sense to allow:
 
 x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value?


The problem of this is that it looks like a function call that takes a type
as argument. As long as types cannot be handled like that in D in general,
I think it is a good idea to leave the cast syntax as it is without trying
to make it look similar to something that is fundamentally different.