• Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> May 10 2008
• "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> May 10 2008
• davidl 126.com May 10 2008
• Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> May 27 2008

"init" and other class properties are kind of shadow-keywords.

class MyClass{
   void init(){
   }
}

The class is fine and can be used.
Now someone attempts to insert this class into a container....

template Templ(T){
   T t = T.init; // Compile error
}

The compiler should forbid the use of the method name "init", if the 
signature does not make any sense for an "init" property. It must be a 
static method, with a return value and no arguments.

"Frank Benoit" <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote in message 
news:g052dt$qt4$1 digitalmars.com...
 "init" and other class properties are kind of shadow-keywords.

 class MyClass{
   void init(){
   }
 }

 The class is fine and can be used.
 Now someone attempts to insert this class into a container....

 template Templ(T){
   T t = T.init; // Compile error
 }

 The compiler should forbid the use of the method name "init", if the 
 signature does not make any sense for an "init" property. It must be a 
 static method, with a return value and no arguments.


This should extend to any semi-reserved name.  The compiler used to allow 
redefinition of 'sizeof' and 'offsetof' but checks were added to disallow 
that.  That mechanism should just be extended. 

=D4=DA Sun, 11 May 2008 05:46:57 +0800=A3=ACJarrett Billingsley  =

<kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> =D0=B4=B5=C0:

 "Frank Benoit" <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote in message
 news:g052dt$qt4$1 digitalmars.com...
 "init" and other class properties are kind of shadow-keywords.

 class MyClass{
   void init(){
   }
 }

 The class is fine and can be used.
 Now someone attempts to insert this class into a container....

 template Templ(T){
   T t =3D T.init; // Compile error
 }

 The compiler should forbid the use of the method name "init", if the
 signature does not make any sense for an "init" property. It must be =




 static method, with a return value and no arguments.


 This should extend to any semi-reserved name.  The compiler used to al=


 redefinition of 'sizeof' and 'offsetof' but checks were added to disal=


 that.  That mechanism should just be extended.


I filed a bug of forbiding the use of stringof method. But it's markd as=
  =

invalid :(
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1412

-- =

=CA=B9=D3=C3 Opera =B8=EF=C3=FC=D0=D4=B5=C4=B5=E7=D7=D3=D3=CA=BC=FE=BF=CD=
=BB=A7=B3=CC=D0=F2: http://www.opera.com/mail/

davidl 126.com wrote:
 ÔÚ Sun, 11 May 2008 05:46:57 +0800£¬Jarrett Billingsley 
 <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> дµÀ:
 
 "Frank Benoit" <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote in message
 news:g052dt$qt4$1 digitalmars.com...
 "init" and other class properties are kind of shadow-keywords.

 class MyClass{
   void init(){
   }
 }

 The class is fine and can be used.
 Now someone attempts to insert this class into a container....

 template Templ(T){
   T t = T.init; // Compile error
 }

 The compiler should forbid the use of the method name "init", if the
 signature does not make any sense for an "init" property. It must be a
 static method, with a return value and no arguments.


 This should extend to any semi-reserved name.  The compiler used to allow
 redefinition of 'sizeof' and 'offsetof' but checks were added to disallow
 that.  That mechanism should just be extended.


 I filed a bug of forbiding the use of stringof method. But it's markd as 
 invalid :(
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1412
 


I've added my reasoning to that bug report. I guess one could make a 
case for redefining 'init', but as for 'stringof', it should be the same 
as 'sizeof' and 'offsetof': unextendable, like Jarret mentioned.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D