• Lars Kyllingstad <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> Mar 17 2009
• Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> Mar 17 2009
• Gide Nwawudu <gide btinternet.com> Mar 17 2009
• Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> Mar 17 2009

Lars Kyllingstad <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:

I've come across the following strange behaviour in D2. Consider a 
struct with a constructor, static opCall and non-static opCall:

     import std.stdio;

     struct Foo
     {
         this(int i)               { writefln("constructor"); }
         static void opCall(int i) { writefln("static opCall"); }
         void opCall(int i)        { writefln("instance opCall"); }
     }

     void main()
     {
         auto foo = Foo(1);
         Foo(1);
         foo(1);
     }

I expected that either compilation should fail because of ambiguity, or 
the program should compile and run with the following output:

     constructor
     static opCall
     instance opCall

Instead, compiled with the newest DMD (2.026), it prints

     constructor
     constructor
     constructor

This has to be a bug. Is it a known one? I tried searching for "struct 
constructor opCall" in both Bugzilla and Google, but couldn't find anything.

-Lars

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Lars Kyllingstad wrote:
 I've come across the following strange behaviour in D2. Consider a 
 struct with a constructor, static opCall and non-static opCall:
 
     import std.stdio;
 
     struct Foo
     {
         this(int i)               { writefln("constructor"); }
         static void opCall(int i) { writefln("static opCall"); }
         void opCall(int i)        { writefln("instance opCall"); }
     }
 
     void main()
     {
         auto foo = Foo(1);
         Foo(1);
         foo(1);
     }
 
 I expected that either compilation should fail because of ambiguity, or 
 the program should compile and run with the following output:
 
     constructor
     static opCall
     instance opCall
 
 Instead, compiled with the newest DMD (2.026), it prints
 
     constructor
     constructor
     constructor
 
 This has to be a bug. Is it a known one? I tried searching for "struct 
 constructor opCall" in both Bugzilla and Google, but couldn't find 
 anything.
 
 -Lars


You can always report it as a bug and if its a duplicate; it'll be 
closed as one.

Gide Nwawudu <gide btinternet.com> writes:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:59:42 +0100, Lars Kyllingstad
<public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> wrote:

I've come across the following strange behaviour in D2. Consider a 
struct with a constructor, static opCall and non-static opCall:

     import std.stdio;

     struct Foo
     {
         this(int i)               { writefln("constructor"); }
         static void opCall(int i) { writefln("static opCall"); }
         void opCall(int i)        { writefln("instance opCall"); }
     }

     void main()
     {
         auto foo = Foo(1);
         Foo(1);
         foo(1);
     }

I expected that either compilation should fail because of ambiguity, or 
the program should compile and run with the following output:

     constructor
     static opCall
     instance opCall

Instead, compiled with the newest DMD (2.026), it prints

     constructor
     constructor
     constructor

This has to be a bug. Is it a known one? I tried searching for "struct 
constructor opCall" in both Bugzilla and Google, but couldn't find anything.

-Lars



http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/DMD_1.035_and_2.019_releases_12806.html#N12833

Walter wrote:
"If there's any constructor defined for S, then S(args) is a
constructor call.

If there's any opCall defined for S, then S(args) is an opCall call.

Otherwise, it's a struct literal."


Gide

Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Gide Nwawudu <gide btinternet.com> wrote:
 On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:59:42 +0100, Lars Kyllingstad
 <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> wrote:

I've come across the following strange behaviour in D2. Consider a
struct with a constructor, static opCall and non-static opCall:

 =A0 =A0 import std.stdio;

 =A0 =A0 struct Foo
 =A0 =A0 {
 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 this(int i) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 { writefln("cons=




 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 static void opCall(int i) { writefln("static opCall"); }
 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 void opCall(int i) =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0{ writefln("instance o=




 =A0 =A0 }

 =A0 =A0 void main()
 =A0 =A0 {
 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 auto foo =3D Foo(1);
 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Foo(1);
 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 foo(1);
 =A0 =A0 }

I expected that either compilation should fail because of ambiguity, or
the program should compile and run with the following output:

 =A0 =A0 constructor
 =A0 =A0 static opCall
 =A0 =A0 instance opCall

Instead, compiled with the newest DMD (2.026), it prints

 =A0 =A0 constructor
 =A0 =A0 constructor
 =A0 =A0 constructor

This has to be a bug. Is it a known one? I tried searching for "struct
constructor opCall" in both Bugzilla and Google, but couldn't find anythi=




-Lars



 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/DMD_1.035_an=


 Walter wrote:
 "If there's any constructor defined for S, then S(args) is a
 constructor call.

 If there's any opCall defined for S, then S(args) is an opCall call.

 Otherwise, it's a struct literal."


foo(1) calling the constructor is almost certainly a bug, though.  It
really should call the instance opCall.