www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 1623] New: Overloading on different parameters numbers gratuitously restrictive.

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1623

           Summary: Overloading on different parameters numbers gratuitously
                    restrictive.
           Product: D
           Version: 2.007
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: andrei metalanguage.com


Consider:

struct uniformInt(IntType)
{
    static uniformInt opCall()(IntType min, IntType max);
    ResultType opCall(UniformRandomNumberGenerator)
        (ref UniformRandomNumberGenerator urng);
}

The compiler does not allow the overloading, although obviously the functions
cannot be confused for one another. This is wrong at multiple levels. Since
struct constructors are not allowed, static opCall is about the only decent way
to create objects. So even if the parameter counts were the same, overloading
should be allowed between static member functions and nonstatic member
functions.


--
Oct 28 2007
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1623


smjg iname.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |smjg iname.com




------- Comment #1 from smjg iname.com  2007-11-08 15:49 -------
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with overloading.  As I try it (DMD
1.023 and 2.007 alike, Windows) the code you've posted compiles without error. 
However, if I trying adding this code:

void main() {
    uniformInt(2, 3);
}

then I get

bz1623.d(2): struct bz1623.uniformInt(IntType) is not a function template
bz1623.d(9): struct bz1623.uniformInt(IntType) cannot deduce template function
f
rom argument types (int,int)

Nothing to do with overloading, but that it's a struct template, not a function
template.  If I cut down the example
----------
struct uniformInt(IntType) {
    static uniformInt opCall()(IntType min);
}

void main() {
    uniformInt(42);
}
----------
then I get basically the same errors.

What errors do you get when you try it under Linux?


--
Nov 08 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1623


Tomasz Sowiński <tomeksowi gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tomeksowi gmail.com


--- Comment #2 from Tomasz Sowiński <tomeksowi gmail.com> 2010-03-14 10:20:30
PDT ---
I confirm this bug is still present in DMD 2.041. I expect it to be a major
hindrance with the new operator overloading regime in which idioms like below
are bound to get popular:

struct Matrix {
    Matrix opOpAssign(string op)(real a);
    Matrix opOpAssign(string op)(Matrix m);
}

void main() {
    Matrix a;
    a += 3;
}

Error: template instance opOpAssign!("+=") matches more than one template
declaration, opOpAssign(string op) and opOpAssign(string op)

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 14 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1623


bearophile_hugs eml.cc changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bearophile_hugs eml.cc


--- Comment #3 from bearophile_hugs eml.cc 2010-03-14 12:00:37 PDT ---
Is this useful?

struct Matrix {
    Matrix opOpAssign(string op, T:real)(T a);
    Matrix opOpAssign(string op, T:Matrix)(T m);
}

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 14 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1623



--- Comment #4 from Tomasz Sowiński <tomeksowi gmail.com> 2010-03-14 13:58:37
PDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)

 Is this useful?
 
 struct Matrix {
     Matrix opOpAssign(string op, T:real)(T a);
     Matrix opOpAssign(string op, T:Matrix)(T m);
 }


It is, thanks. Still, it'd be a lot cleaner to do without dummy template
params... Is there some bigger problem that prevents the compiler to look at
both template and runtime params when resolving templated function overloads?
I'm guessing that it currently matches only against template signatures and
bails out upon ambiguity.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 14 2010
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1623


Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |clugdbug yahoo.com.au
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


--- Comment #5 from Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> 2012-02-08 06:54:34 PST ---
The test case in comment 2 was fixed in DMD2.049 when bug 4430 was fixed.
That seems to be the only valid test case in this bug report.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 08 2012