digitalmars.D.learn - Overloading methods by constness?
- Nathan Reed <nathaniel.reed gmail.com> Aug 21 2007
- Paul Collier <paching gmail.com> Aug 22 2007
- "Craig Black" <cblack ara.com> Aug 22 2007
- Nathan Reed <nathaniel.reed gmail.com> Aug 26 2007
- Witold Baryluk <baryluk smp.if.uj.edu.pl> Aug 26 2007
Hello,
In C++, you can overload methods by the constness of the method itself:
class Foo
{
void bar (); // #1
void bar () const; // #2
}
...
Foo f; f.bar(); // calls #1
const Foo g; g.bar(); // calls #2
I am wondering if there is any way to get similiar functionality in D?
I have tried the following:
class Foo
{
void bar () { ... }
const void bar () { ... }
}
but get a compiler error that the "bar"s conflict.
Why would I want to do this, you might ask? Well, I would like to use
this to write a pair of opSlice methods. With built-in arrays, you can
do this:
char[] str = "Hello, world".dup;
char[] substr = str[0..5];
const(char)[] str2 = "Hello, world";
const(char)[] substr2 = str2[0..5];
char[] substr3 = str2[0..5]; // fails
i.e., the slice returns either a char[] or a const(char)[] depending on
the constness of the array. However, I cannot see how to make my own
classes do the same thing, unless I can overload opSlice by constness.
Thanks,
Nathan Reed
Aug 21 2007
Nathan Reed wrote:but get a compiler error that the "bar"s conflict.
yet, so it's impossible to overload like that until mangling is changed. :( I suspect Walter is hesitant to completely break library compatibility from D 1.0 to D 2.0! That's the problem with const correctness... gotta do it all the way or not at all... ;)
Aug 22 2007
Perhaps this should be posted as a bug? "Nathan Reed" <nathaniel.reed gmail.com> wrote in message news:faga07$hj9$1 digitalmars.com...Hello, In C++, you can overload methods by the constness of the method itself: class Foo { void bar (); // #1 void bar () const; // #2 } ... Foo f; f.bar(); // calls #1 const Foo g; g.bar(); // calls #2 I am wondering if there is any way to get similiar functionality in D? I have tried the following: class Foo { void bar () { ... } const void bar () { ... } } but get a compiler error that the "bar"s conflict. Why would I want to do this, you might ask? Well, I would like to use this to write a pair of opSlice methods. With built-in arrays, you can do this: char[] str = "Hello, world".dup; char[] substr = str[0..5]; const(char)[] str2 = "Hello, world"; const(char)[] substr2 = str2[0..5]; char[] substr3 = str2[0..5]; // fails i.e., the slice returns either a char[] or a const(char)[] depending on the constness of the array. However, I cannot see how to make my own classes do the same thing, unless I can overload opSlice by constness. Thanks, Nathan Reed
Aug 22 2007
Witold Baryluk wrote:This isn't bug. Look also at the http://s3.amazonaws.com/dconf2007/WalterAndrei.pdf page 38.
Good, I'm glad to see this problem is being addressed. I do have a question about the 'return' storage-class, though. Will it only work for non-member functions, or will there be a syntax for writing a member function for which 'this' has the 'return' storage-class? Although, with the new interchangeable function call syntax, this doesn't matter that much... Thanks, Nathan Reed
Aug 26 2007
Dnia Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:20:19 -0500 "Craig Black" <cblack ara.com> napisa=B3/a:Perhaps this should be posted as a bug? =20
This isn't bug. Look also at the=20 http://s3.amazonaws.com/dconf2007/WalterAndrei.pdf page 38. regards. --=20 Witold Baryluk, aleph0 MAIL: baryluk smp.if.uj.edu.pl JID: movax jabber.autocom.pl
Aug 26 2007









Paul Collier <paching gmail.com> 