• d-bugmail puremagic.com Sep 07 2008
• d-bugmail puremagic.com Oct 10 2008
• d-bugmail puremagic.com Oct 10 2008
• d-bugmail puremagic.com Oct 10 2008
• d-bugmail puremagic.com Oct 20 2008

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2344

           Summary: Two wrong lookups for array functions
           Product: D
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: andrei metalanguage.com


size_t blah(int[] r) { return r.length; }

struct A
{
    int[] r;
    size_t blah() { return r.blah(); }
}

void main()
{
    A a;
    a.blah;
}

The code above says:

function test.A.blah () does not match parameter types (int[])
Error: expected 0 arguments, not 1

So it looks like the compiler first morphs r.blah() into blah(r), but then uses
the local scope to look for blah. Therefore A.blah will be found, leading to
the nonsensical call this.blah(r).

Interestingly, if the parens are removed leaving r.blah, the lookup is still
wrong but in a different way:

Error: no property 'blah' for type 'int[]'

So this time the call fails to start with. Both errors are bugs. The code
should compile with and without parentheses.


-- 

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2344





------- Comment #1 from bugzilla digitalmars.com  2008-10-10 18:23 -------
This is an enhancement. Rewriting:
   array.foo
as:
   .foo(array)
rather than:
   foo(array)
does the trick.


-- 

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2344


bugzilla digitalmars.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement




-- 

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2344





------- Comment #2 from andrei metalanguage.com  2008-10-10 20:34 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
 This is an enhancement. Rewriting:
    array.foo
 as:
    .foo(array)
 rather than:
    foo(array)
 does the trick.
 


Nah. The whole point was to have obj.foo work for arrays and other beasts.


-- 

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2344


bugzilla digitalmars.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Comment #3 from bugzilla digitalmars.com  2008-10-20 22:21 -------
Fixed dmd 2.020


--