www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 1335] New: typedef-1 can't be stored in same typedef

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1335

           Summary: typedef-1 can't be stored in same typedef
           Product: D
           Version: 1.018
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: webmaster villagersonline.com


The following file fails to compile:

typedef uint foo;

void main() {
  foo f = 100;
  f--; // this works
  foo g = f-1; // this doesn't
}

ERROR MESSAGE:
typedef_problem.d(6): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (f - 1u) of
type uint to foo


--
Jul 11 2007
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1335






that would indicate that the typing rules will only convert back to base types
in expressions.

(cast(foo)1) + 1  => (cast(uint)(cast(foo)1)) + (cast(uint)1)

I think this is the correct way to do things, however an argument might be made
for literal being a special case.


--
Jul 11 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1335


deewiant gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement
           Priority|P2                          |P3





This is as intended, but it's still the most annoying thing about typedefs.
IMHO typedefs should convert freely to and from their base type, explicit casts
should only be needed when converting to other typedefs.

Use "foo g = f - cast(foo)1".


--
Jul 11 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1335


shro8822 vandals.uidaho.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|enhancement                 |normal
           Priority|P3                          |P2





Free conversion to and from a typedef might have some issues with overloading
of functions. Either the rules have to not apply to function args (a special
case) or typdefs become little more than aliases. I agree that having to cast
literals to make math work is a bit silly, but I don't known how to fix it
without loosing D's advantages over C in this area.


--
Jul 11 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1335






There are a number of ways that you might make this work, but IMHO the current
implementation is broken.  (Maybe it's working as design, and the design is
broken, too, I don't know.)  Let me expand the example code:

typedef uint foo;
void main() {
  foo f = 100;
  f--; // this works
  uint i = f-1; // this works
  foo g = f-1; // this doesn't
}

From this example, and by reading the error message, you realize that DMD is
allowing implicit conversion typedef->uint, but not the other way around. 
Isn't this pretty inconsistent?

IMHO, implicit conversions either way should be disallowed.  We could still
allow for nice math with literals if we followed this rule:

  "Math between numeric typedefs and numeric literals is allowed, and the
result has the same type as the typedef."

You could even consider allowing math between numeric typedefs and non-typedef
variables, but I am more skeptical of that.


--
Jul 11 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1335







 From this example, and by reading the error message, you realize that 
 DMD is allowing implicit conversion typedef->uint, but not the other
 way around. Isn't this pretty inconsistent?


this is more or less the same as the class conversion rules

conversion towards Object; no cast
conversion away from Object; needs cast

conversion towards built ins; no cast
conversion away from built ins; needs cast

typdefs can be considered subsets of what they typedef

For the little I've thought of it I'd have no problem with your suggested rule.
However, I still want the free down cast.


--
Jul 11 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1335


bugzilla digitalmars.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement





This is working as designed, so changing it is an enhancement request.


--
Jul 12 2007
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1335


Alex Rønne Petersen <alex lycus.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |alex lycus.org
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX



CEST ---
Closing since typedef is effectively deprecated.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 09 2012