digitalmars.D - Why does this extremely simple operation not work?
- "William" <squidkidsignup gmail.com> Feb 12 2013
- "monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> Feb 12 2013
- d coder <dlang.coder gmail.com> Feb 12 2013
- "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> Feb 12 2013
- =?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= <acehreli yahoo.com> Feb 13 2013
This is an absurdly noobish question, but here goes. I'm
learning D (I'm already reasonably comfortable with C and
Objective-C, so compiled languages are not new to me), and I
can't figure out why this super simple operation doesn't work.
I have a parent and a child class, and while implicit casting
from child to parent works (function which takes parent will
accept instance of child), it does not work with pointers (and
yes, I understand that because objects are reference types a
MyObject* is really a pointer to a pointer since a MyObject is a
pointer). A function that takes a Parent* as an argument will
not accept &myChild in its place without an explicit
cast(Parent*)&myChild.
I feel like there's some fundamental property of the D
implementation that I'm not getting. I was under the impression
an subtype's instance could *always always always* be put in
place of an instance of the super type. Why are pointers an
exception?
class Parent {}
class Child : Parent {}
void myFunc(Parent* obj) {
writeln("got ", obj);
}
void main() {
Child myChild = new Child();
myFunc(&myChild);
}
referenceTest.d(11): Error: function referenceTest.myFunc
(Parent* obj) is not callable using argument types (Child*)
referenceTest.d(11): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression
(& myChild) of type Child* to Parent*
Feb 12 2013
On Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 16:58:24 UTC, William wrote:This is an absurdly noobish question, but here goes. I'm learning D (I'm already reasonably comfortable with C and Objective-C, so compiled languages are not new to me), and I can't figure out why this super simple operation doesn't work. I have a parent and a child class, and while implicit casting from child to parent works (function which takes parent will accept instance of child), it does not work with pointers (and yes, I understand that because objects are reference types a MyObject* is really a pointer to a pointer since a MyObject is a pointer). A function that takes a Parent* as an argument will not accept &myChild in its place without an explicit cast(Parent*)&myChild. I feel like there's some fundamental property of the D implementation that I'm not getting. I was under the impression an subtype's instance could *always always always* be put in place of an instance of the super type. Why are pointers an exception? class Parent {} class Child : Parent {} void myFunc(Parent* obj) { writeln("got ", obj); } void main() { Child myChild = new Child(); myFunc(&myChild); } referenceTest.d(11): Error: function referenceTest.myFunc (Parent* obj) is not callable using argument types (Child*) referenceTest.d(11): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (& myChild) of type Child* to Parent*
You'd get the same behavior problem in C++. Where you can't pass a "Child**" when asking for a "Parent**". Long story short, if you could, you'd be able to place a parent instance inside a child instance, and mess everything up: void myFunc(Parent* obj) { static Parent par; if(!par) par = new Parent(); obj = ∥ } void main() { Child myChild = new Child(); myFunc(&myChild); //Here, myChild is a reference to a Parent => Type system broken }
Feb 12 2013
In D, class objects are implicitly pointers. So try the following code.
class Parent {}
class Child : Parent {}
void myFunc(Parent obj) {
import std.stdio;
writeln("got ", obj);
}
void main() {
Child myChild = new Child();
myFunc(myChild);
}
Feb 12 2013
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 18:04:18 monarch_dodra wrote:You'd get the same behavior problem in C++. Where you can't pass a "Child**" when asking for a "Parent**". Long story short, if you could, you'd be able to place a parent instance inside a child instance, and mess everything up: void myFunc(Parent* obj) { static Parent par; if(!par) par = new Parent(); obj = ∥ } void main() { Child myChild = new Child(); myFunc(&myChild); //Here, myChild is a reference to a Parent => Type system broken }
Yeah. It's good to keep in mind that whenever you see a class referred to as a type, it's really referring to a reference to a class object, _not_ the class object itself, which is why &obj doesn't point to the class object but to its reference, and the reference doens't have a parent or child relationship with any classes - just the class itself has that. - Jonathan M Davis
Feb 12 2013
On 02/12/2013 08:58 AM, William wrote:I'm learning D
There is also the D.learn newsgroup. Ali
Feb 13 2013









"monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> 