digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 1412] New: stringof shouldn't be shadowed by member func
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (27/27) Aug 11 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1412
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Aug 11 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1412
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (12/12) Aug 11 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1412
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (10/10) Aug 11 2007 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1412
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (19/19) May 11 2008 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1412
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (21/21) May 27 2008 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1412
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1412
Summary: stringof shouldn't be shadowed by member func
Product: D
Version: 1.020
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
ReportedBy: davidl 126.com
import std.stdio;
struct k
{
char[] stringof()
{
return "mystringof";
}
}
void main()
{
k v;
writefln(v.stringof);
}
--
Aug 11 2007
d-bugmail puremagic.com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1412
bugzilla digitalmars.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
------- Comment #1 from bugzilla digitalmars.com 2007-08-11 12:36 -------
The builtin properties can be overridden by the user if he desires. This is
working as designed.
--
Aug 11 2007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1412
davidl 126.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID |
------- Comment #2 from davidl 126.com 2007-08-11 18:38 -------
this design would break generic programing. Consider if users are not aware of
this design feature, they use stringof as their private internal use?
And I still don't know why a user want to overload stringof? For me,
overloading these builtin properties could only be inconsistent
--
Aug 11 2007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1412
bugzilla digitalmars.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
------- Comment #3 from bugzilla digitalmars.com 2007-08-11 19:00 -------
It's designed this way so the class designer can customize what the properties
do.
--
Aug 11 2007
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1412
davidl 126.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID |
------- Comment #4 from davidl 126.com 2008-05-11 20:59 -------
i will appreciate that a warning or a explicit override const keyword?
struct k
{
override const char[] stringof() // for overloading the stringof
builtin prop,users have to use "override const" keyword explicitly?
{
return "mystringof";
}
}
or the compiler emits a warning will be nice also
--
May 11 2008
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1412
brunodomedeiros+bugz gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |brunodomedeiros+bugz gmail.c
| |om
------- Comment #5 from brunodomedeiros+bugz gmail.com 2008-05-27 17:29 -------
But unlike "init" or others, stringof is not a real property, nor anything like
it. It is a special, meta-programming construct that has a syntax like a
property, but behaves quite differently from a property, due to the fact that
the stringof expression is never evaluated. For example such expression:
(new Foo()).stringof
does not create a new Foo.
That alone shows the difference in semantics. It's not even possible to define
a custom stringof property that behaves like the original stringof!
So the language should not allow "redefining" the stringof property. It should
be the same as sizeof, which cannot be redefined (and also does not evaluate
it's expression).
(One could also suggest that a free function syntax, ie: "sizeof(new A())",
should be allowed, and maybe even prefered)
--
May 27 2008