digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 2367] New: Overloading error
- d-bugmail puremagic.com Sep 20 2008
- "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> Sep 20 2008
- Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Sep 20 2008
- Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> Sep 20 2008
- "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> Sep 20 2008
- "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> Sep 20 2008
- "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> Sep 20 2008
- "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> Sep 20 2008
- d-bugmail puremagic.com Sep 20 2008
- d-bugmail puremagic.com Sep 20 2008
- d-bugmail puremagic.com Sep 20 2008
- "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> Sep 20 2008
- d-bugmail puremagic.com Sep 30 2008
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2367 Summary: Overloading error 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 The following code does not compile: struct S { void foo(in char[] s) {} void foo(in dchar[] s) {} } void main(string[] args) { S s; s.foo("a"); } The second overload should not even be considered. --
Sep 20 2008
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 2:01 PM, <d-bugmail puremagic.com> wrote:http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2367 Summary: Overloading error 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 The following code does not compile: struct S { void foo(in char[] s) {} void foo(in dchar[] s) {} } void main(string[] args) { S s; s.foo("a"); } The second overload should not even be considered.
"string literals" do not have a type; they are, in some ways, polysemous. They are considered char[], wchar[], or dchar[] based on where they're used. If they're used in a situation where it could go either way (such as this overloading case), it's an error. The solution is simple: affix a 'c', 'w', or 'd' to the end of the string literal to give it an explicit type.
Sep 20 2008
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 2:01 PM, <d-bugmail puremagic.com> wrote:http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2367 Summary: Overloading error 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 The following code does not compile: struct S { void foo(in char[] s) {} void foo(in dchar[] s) {} } void main(string[] args) { S s; s.foo("a"); } The second overload should not even be considered.
"string literals" do not have a type; they are, in some ways, polysemous. They are considered char[], wchar[], or dchar[] based on where they're used. If they're used in a situation where it could go either way (such as this overloading case), it's an error. The solution is simple: affix a 'c', 'w', or 'd' to the end of the string literal to give it an explicit type.
To facilitate archiving, you may want to post replies to the website instead. Andrei
Sep 20 2008
Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> To facilitate archiving, you may want to post replies to the website instead. Andrei
thread were mirrored on bugzilla. Maybe it's a bug in the puremagic mailing lists?
Sometimes I express my thoughts on the subject here on purpose so that they don't get posted to the bugzilla (because they address some irrelevant topic or loosely related to the original post or not helpful all). This discussion is on of examples :)
Well well. Color me wrong.
It's supposed to. If that's stopped working, I'll fix it. It's extremely handy.
Sep 20 2008
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:Jarrett Billingsley wrote:On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 2:01 PM, <d-bugmail puremagic.com> wrote:http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2367 Summary: Overloading error 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 The following code does not compile: struct S { void foo(in char[] s) {} void foo(in dchar[] s) {} } void main(string[] args) { S s; s.foo("a"); } The second overload should not even be considered.
"string literals" do not have a type; they are, in some ways, polysemous. They are considered char[], wchar[], or dchar[] based on where they're used. If they're used in a situation where it could go either way (such as this overloading case), it's an error. The solution is simple: affix a 'c', 'w', or 'd' to the end of the string literal to give it an explicit type.
To facilitate archiving, you may want to post replies to the website instead. Andrei
Well that's weird, I could have sworn that replies posted to the NG thread were mirrored on bugzilla. Maybe it's a bug in the puremagic mailing lists?
Sep 20 2008
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:55:38 +0400, Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> wrote:On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:Jarrett Billingsley wrote:On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 2:01 PM, <d-bugmail puremagic.com> wrote:http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2367 Summary: Overloading error 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 The following code does not compile: struct S { void foo(in char[] s) {} void foo(in dchar[] s) {} } void main(string[] args) { S s; s.foo("a"); } The second overload should not even be considered.
"string literals" do not have a type; they are, in some ways, polysemous. They are considered char[], wchar[], or dchar[] based on where they're used. If they're used in a situation where it could go either way (such as this overloading case), it's an error. The solution is simple: affix a 'c', 'w', or 'd' to the end of the string literal to give it an explicit type.
To facilitate archiving, you may want to post replies to the website instead. Andrei
Well that's weird, I could have sworn that replies posted to the NG thread were mirrored on bugzilla. Maybe it's a bug in the puremagic mailing lists?
No, it never used to and I like the way it is! Sometimes I express my thoughts on the subject here on purpose so that they don't get posted to the bugzilla (because they address some irrelevant topic or loosely related to the original post or not helpful all). This discussion is on of examples :)
Sep 20 2008
<d-bugmail puremagic.com> wrote in message news:bug-2367-3 http.d.puremagic.com/issues/...http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2367 Summary: Overloading error 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 The following code does not compile: struct S { void foo(in char[] s) {} void foo(in dchar[] s) {} } void main(string[] args) { S s; s.foo("a"); } The second overload should not even be considered.
Testing, testing.
Sep 20 2008
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Denis Koroskin <2korden gmail.com> wrote:On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:55:38 +0400, Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> wrote:On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:Jarrett Billingsley wrote:On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 2:01 PM, <d-bugmail puremagic.com> wrote:http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2367 Summary: Overloading error 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 The following code does not compile: struct S { void foo(in char[] s) {} void foo(in dchar[] s) {} } void main(string[] args) { S s; s.foo("a"); } The second overload should not even be considered.
"string literals" do not have a type; they are, in some ways, polysemous. They are considered char[], wchar[], or dchar[] based on where they're used. If they're used in a situation where it could go either way (such as this overloading case), it's an error. The solution is simple: affix a 'c', 'w', or 'd' to the end of the string literal to give it an explicit type.
To facilitate archiving, you may want to post replies to the website instead. Andrei
Well that's weird, I could have sworn that replies posted to the NG thread were mirrored on bugzilla. Maybe it's a bug in the puremagic mailing lists?
No, it never used to and I like the way it is! Sometimes I express my thoughts on the subject here on purpose so that they don't get posted to the bugzilla (because they address some irrelevant topic or loosely related to the original post or not helpful all). This discussion is on of examples :)
Well well. Color me wrong.
Sep 20 2008
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2367 ------- Comment #1 from jarrett.billingsley gmail.com 2008-09-20 15:44 ------- "string literals" do not have a type; they are, in some ways, polysemous. They are considered char[], wchar[], or dchar[] based on where they're used. If they're used in a situation where it could go either way (such as this overloading case), it's an error. The solution is simple: affix a 'c', 'w', or 'd' to the end of the string literal to give it an explicit type. --
Sep 20 2008
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2367 ------- Comment #2 from andrei metalanguage.com 2008-09-20 17:25 ------- Even with polysemy, vocables may have a principal meaning. For example "1" is polysemous because it fits byte, ubyte etc. but absent any constraint it will prefer to be an int. auto i = 1; // i's type is int As discussed with Walter, strings are also easy to acquire a principal meaning. One possibility discussed is that strings with only ASCII characters to have invariant(char)[N] as principal type. In fact the N should be dropped too for a number of reasons. So "a" should have principal type invariant(char)[]. (If a constraint is present, no problem.) The exaggerated ambiguity of string literals has caused much grief to many people, it's about time to fix it. --
Sep 20 2008
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2367 ------- Comment #3 from jarrett.billingsley gmail.com 2008-09-20 17:49 ------- Amen to dropping the fixed-sizedness of string literals. I suppose determining the type based on the smallest type that can represent the data without using multibyte encodings is reasonable enough, and you're right, it fits in with the way it works for ints. --
Sep 20 2008
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> wrote:To facilitate archiving, you may want to post replies to the website instead. Andrei
thread were mirrored on bugzilla. Maybe it's a bug in the puremagic mailing lists?
Sometimes I express my thoughts on the subject here on purpose so that they don't get posted to the bugzilla (because they address some irrelevant topic or loosely related to the original post or not helpful all). This discussion is on of examples :)
Well well. Color me wrong.
It's supposed to. If that's stopped working, I'll fix it. It's extremely handy.
I knew it!
Sep 20 2008
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2367 ------- Comment #4 from terranium yandex.ru 2008-09-30 03:09 ------- (In reply to comment #2)One possibility discussed is that strings with only ASCII characters to have invariant(char)[N] as principal type.
In fact the N should be dropped too for a number of reasons.
--
Sep 30 2008