www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Extending UFCS

reply Piotr Szturmaj <bncrbme jadamspam.pl> writes:
The current possibility of UFCS is:

struct S { }
void func(S s) { }

S s;
s.func(); // equivalent of func(s);

why not add:

template sizeInInts(T)
{
     enum sizeInInts = T.sizeof / 4;
}

S.sizeInInts // equivalent of sizeInInts!S

Is it worth it? I mean adding static members to aggregate types.

Consider another example:

struct MD5 { ... }
struct SHA1 { ... }

string hash(Digest)(const(void)[] data)
     if (isDigest!Digest)
{
     Digest d;
     ubyte[DigestLen!Digest] h;
     d.put(cast(const(ubyte)[])data);
     d.finish(h);
     return xformat("%(%02x%)", h);
}

and instead of writing hash!SHA1("abc"), write SHA1.hash("abc");
Aug 29 2012
next sibling parent reply Piotr Szturmaj <bncrbme jadamspam.pl> writes:
Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
 and instead of writing hash!SHA1("abc"), write SHA1.hash("abc");

Another example: template MutablePointer(T) { alias PointerTarget!(Unqual!T) MutablePointer; } alias const(int) CInt; static assert(is(MutablePointer!CInt == int*)); Alternative syntax: template MutablePointer(T) { alias T.Unqual.PointerTarget MutablePointer; } alias const(int) CInt; static assert(is(CInt.MutablePointer == int*)); This is just for convenience, as with UFCS. Second syntax is IMO a lot cleaner.
Aug 29 2012
parent "Tommi" <tommitissari hotmail.com> writes:
A similar feature suggestion over there:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/uufohvapbyceuaylostl forum.dlang.org

Also notice the enhancement request I made, there's more 
discussion about it:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8381
Aug 30 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-08-29 22:20, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
 The current possibility of UFCS is:

 struct S { }
 void func(S s) { }

 S s;
 s.func(); // equivalent of func(s);

 why not add:

 template sizeInInts(T)
 {
      enum sizeInInts = T.sizeof / 4;
 }

 S.sizeInInts // equivalent of sizeInInts!S

 Is it worth it? I mean adding static members to aggregate types.

 Consider another example:

 struct MD5 { ... }
 struct SHA1 { ... }

 string hash(Digest)(const(void)[] data)
      if (isDigest!Digest)
 {
      Digest d;
      ubyte[DigestLen!Digest] h;
      d.put(cast(const(ubyte)[])data);
      d.finish(h);
      return xformat("%(%02x%)", h);
 }

 and instead of writing hash!SHA1("abc"), write SHA1.hash("abc");

I would like to have this feature. I've asked about it before. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Aug 29 2012
prev sibling parent "Tommi" <tommitissari hotmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 at 20:20:04 UTC, Piotr Szturmaj 
wrote:
 The current possibility of UFCS is:

 struct S { }
 void func(S s) { }

 S s;
 s.func(); // equivalent of func(s);

 why not add:

 template sizeInInts(T)
 {
     enum sizeInInts = T.sizeof / 4;
 }

 S.sizeInInts // equivalent of sizeInInts!S

 Is it worth it? I mean adding static members to aggregate types.

 Consider another example:

 struct MD5 { ... }
 struct SHA1 { ... }

 string hash(Digest)(const(void)[] data)
     if (isDigest!Digest)
 {
     Digest d;
     ubyte[DigestLen!Digest] h;
     d.put(cast(const(ubyte)[])data);
     d.finish(h);
     return xformat("%(%02x%)", h);
 }

 and instead of writing hash!SHA1("abc"), write SHA1.hash("abc");

See my suggestion for a similar feature: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/uufohvapbyceuaylostl forum.dlang.org And notice the enhancement request I made. There's more discussion there: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8381
Aug 29 2012