www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 516] New: Mutually calling constructors allowed

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=516

           Summary: Mutually calling constructors allowed
           Product: D
           Version: 0.174
          Platform: PC
               URL: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/class.html
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: spec
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P4
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: deewiant gmail.com
OtherBugsDependingO 511
             nThis:


The spec states under "Constructors" that "It is illegal for constructors to
mutually call each other", providing a code snippet similar to the following as
a showcase:

class Foo {
        this() { this(1); }
        this(int i) { this(); } // illegal, cyclic constructor calls
}

void main() {
        Foo foo = new Foo();
}

Yet, this code compiles fine, failing at runtime due to a stack overflow.

If the compiler is not meant to detect this, the restriction seems redundant -
such calls will obviously fail at runtime just as though the constructors were
normal functions, which do not suffer from such a restriction. If the compiler
should, however, detect this, then it is a bug that it currently does not.


--
Nov 15 2006
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=516






There is no way, in the general case, for the compiler to detect this.


--
Jun 27 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=516






Why not? Java does it. And "this" is bound at static time, not and runtime, and
at static time you have all the information needed to detect cycles.


--
Jun 27 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=516






Because this may be declared as:

    this();

meaning it's body appears elsewhere. Also, things that appear to be cycles in
static analysis may not be at runtime, like recursive functions.


--
Jun 27 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=516






-------
If it's not possible just remove it from the spec. Why was it there in the
first place?


--
Jun 28 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=516






1. Java doesn't allow separate compilation of constructors.
2. Java doesn't allow any flow control before other constructors are called.


--
Jun 28 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=516









 If it's not possible just remove it from the spec. Why was it there in the
 first place?
 


Some parts of the spec can be read as "The language is not required to work
correctly if you do ____. If you do and "things" happen, it's your error."


--
Jun 29 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=516






Therein lies half the problem.  The spec should make a clear distinction
between things that are actually illegal, things that cause undefined behaviour
and things that the compiler may decide are errors if it's clever enough.

Moreover, I'd read "mutually calling" as meaning that a loop exists in which
constructors call which others, regardless of whether the calls can actually
loop at runtime.


--
Jun 29 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=516






I disagree. I think it is valid to say that something is both illegal and that
it result in undefined behavior. I think that somewhere it is said, for
example, that it is /illegal/ to have code depend on order of evaluation (this
can't be checked, the halting problem can be found in there).

Maybe the distinction should be made between things that are illegal and the
compiler is required to reject and things that are still illegal but that it
needn't detect.


--
Jun 29 2008
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=516


Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED



02:16:40 PST ---
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org/commit/d26103e11b8af546e4bfac71c412a0ecf02aac5d

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 21 2012