www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Typedef!int + Typedef!int => int? is this a typedef overlook, or it's

reply mw <mingwu gmail.com> writes:
Hi,

I'm trying to follow this doc on typedef:

https://dlang.org/library/std/typecons/typedef.html

--------------------------------
import std.typecons;
import std.stdio;

alias MyInt = Typedef!int;

void f(MyInt mi) {}

void main() {
   MyInt a = 2;
   MyInt b = 3;
   f(a + b);
}
--------------------------------

td.d(14,4): Error: function td.f(Typedef!(int, 0, null) mi) is 
not callable using argument types (int)
td.d(14,4):        cannot pass argument a.opBinary(b) of type int 
to parameter Typedef!(int, 0, null) mi

Naturally I've expected `a + b` will have the same type as MyInt 
(not the underlying type int).

Is this a typedef overlook, or it's a feature by design?

If it's by design what's the reason behind?

Thanks.
Jun 10 2020
parent reply RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305 gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 10 June 2020 at 22:47:49 UTC, mw wrote:

 Hi,

 I'm trying to follow this doc on typedef:

 https://dlang.org/library/std/typecons/typedef.html

 --------------------------------
 import std.typecons;
 import std.stdio;

 alias MyInt = Typedef!int;

 void f(MyInt mi) {}

 void main() {
   MyInt a = 2;
   MyInt b = 3;
   f(a + b);
 }
 --------------------------------

 td.d(14,4): Error: function td.f(Typedef!(int, 0, null) mi) is 
 not callable using argument types (int)
 td.d(14,4):        cannot pass argument a.opBinary(b) of type 
 int to parameter Typedef!(int, 0, null) mi

 Naturally I've expected `a + b` will have the same type as 
 MyInt (not the underlying type int).

 Is this a typedef overlook, or it's a feature by design?

 If it's by design what's the reason behind?

 Thanks.


I think it is an overlook and therefore a bug. The spec says that 
the whole point of Typedef is to create a type that is different 
from the typedefed one (otherwise you would end up with a 
glorified alias). However the implementation simply mixins a 
generic implementation of opBinary that uses the underlying type 
[1]. The definition of opBinary has no idea that it should wrap 
the result in another type [2].

[1] 
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/blob/master/std/typecons.d#L7472
[2] 
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/blob/master/std/typecons.d#L6836
Jun 10 2020
next sibling parent RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 11 June 2020 at 04:11:24 UTC, RazvanN wrote:


 I think it is an overlook and therefore a bug. The spec says 
 that the whole point of Typedef is to create a type that is 
 different from the typedefed one (otherwise you would end up 
 with a glorified alias). However the implementation simply 
 mixins a generic implementation of opBinary that uses the 
 underlying type [1]. The definition of opBinary has no idea 
 that it should wrap the result in another type [2].

 [1] 
 https://github.com/dlang/phobos/blob/master/std/typecons.d#L7472
 [2] 
 https://github.com/dlang/phobos/blob/master/std/typecons.d#L6836


The only solution I can come up with is to add an optional 
parameter called Wrapper to Proxy that defaults to the type of 
the first parameter. The opBinary function then will be modified 
to return Wrapper!ValueType if (is(Wrapper != ValueType)).
Jun 10 2020
prev sibling parent mw <mingwu gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 11 June 2020 at 04:11:24 UTC, RazvanN wrote:

 I think it is an overlook and therefore a bug. The spec says 
 that the whole point of Typedef is to create a type that is 
 different from the typedefed one (otherwise you would end up 
 with a glorified alias). However the implementation simply


That's my thought too, and on the doc page, the purpose of 
Typedef is:

Typedef allows the creation of a unique type which is based on an 
existing type. Unlike the alias feature, Typedef ensures the two 
types are not considered as equals.

https://dlang.org/library/std/typecons/typedef.html

bug filed:

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20920



 mixins a generic implementation of opBinary that uses the 
 underlying type [1]. The definition of opBinary has no idea 
 that it should wrap the result in another type [2].
Jun 10 2020