www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - Is this really a bug?

reply Daniel <daniel.maciel gmail.com> writes:
Hi, I've read on Bugzilla Issue 6398 that this is a bug:

static int value;
ref foo(){ printf("getter\n"); return value; }
ref foo(int x){ printf("setter\n"); value = x; return value; }

void main(){ foo = 1; }  // Should print "setter", but print "getter" in 2.054

But, this is pretty convenient syntax, no? That way you could implement only
one function foo() and use it as setter and getter.

I'm a bit confused about it.

Thanks,
Daniel
Jan 06 2012
parent reply Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:
On 7/01/12 1:19 AM, Daniel wrote:
 Hi, I've read on Bugzilla Issue 6398 that this is a bug:

 static int value;
 ref foo(){ printf("getter\n"); return value; }
 ref foo(int x){ printf("setter\n"); value = x; return value; }

 void main(){ foo = 1; }  // Should print "setter", but print "getter" in 2.054

 But, this is pretty convenient syntax, no? That way you could implement only
one function foo() and use it as setter and getter.

 I'm a bit confused about it.

 Thanks,
 Daniel

It is convenient syntax, but sometimes you want the getter to return a ref, but want the setter to do something different to "getter() = x". This bug says that there is no way to override a ref returning getter with a custom setter.
Jan 06 2012
parent Daniel <daniel.maciel gmail.com> writes:
Oh, right, thanks!
Jan 07 2012