www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 2945] New: Precedence of 'new' vs '.'

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2945

           Summary: Precedence of 'new' vs '.'
           Product: D
           Version: 1.042
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: benoit tionex.de


In Java one can write:

new MyClass().run();

in D this does not compile, parenthesis are needed.

(new MyClass()).run();

I think this should behave like Java.
See also
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=89433


--
May 05 2009
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2945


matti.niemenmaa+dbugzilla iki.fi changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Platform|PC                          |All




------- Comment #1 from matti.niemenmaa+dbugzilla iki.fi  2009-05-06 04:50
-------
There might be a problem here in that in D you can write it without the
brackets:

new MyClass.Foo;

Is the above trying to create a new Myclass.Foo or is it trying to create a new
MyClass and then access its Foo member? It depends on the type of Foo, and such
a dependency is, I think, what Walter has been trying to avoid.

Nevertheless, I often forget the brackets myself and wouldn't mind this change,
I just think the above means that it's not going to happen.


--
May 06 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2945





------- Comment #2 from simen.kjaras gmail.com  2009-05-06 07:53 -------
(In reply to comment #1)

 There might be a problem here in that in D you can write it without the
 brackets:
 
 new MyClass.Foo;
 
 Is the above trying to create a new Myclass.Foo or is it trying to create a new
 MyClass and then access its Foo member? It depends on the type of Foo, and such
 a dependency is, I think, what Walter has been trying to avoid.
 
 Nevertheless, I often forget the brackets myself and wouldn't mind this change,
 I just think the above means that it's not going to happen.
 



Ceraintly. However, new MyClass().Foo; has no such ambiguity until D becomes
capable of returning types from functions.

--
  Simen


--
May 06 2009
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2945





------- Comment #3 from schveiguy yahoo.com  2009-05-06 09:05 -------
(In reply to comment #2)

 Ceraintly. However, new MyClass().Foo; has no such ambiguity until D becomes
 capable of returning types from functions.



Traditionally, runtime reflection like that is done by calling methods on the
returned type, not by using a compile-time operator.

So it would look more like:

MyClass.Foo.instantiate();


--
May 06 2009