Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

class Foo
{
    void opAssign(int bar)
    {
    }
}

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

test.d(17): Error: function test.Foo.opAssign (int bar) is not
callable using argument types (void*)
test.d(17): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (null) of type
void* to int

I just wanted to implement one opAssign method for assigning a
specific type, but now I've ran into the issue that assigning class
objects to null doesn't work anymore.. :/

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:23:07 -0400, Andrej Mitrovic  
<andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote:

 class Foo
 {
     void opAssign(int bar)
     {
     }
 }

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

 test.d(17): Error: function test.Foo.opAssign (int bar) is not
 callable using argument types (void*)
 test.d(17): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (null) of type
 void* to int

 I just wanted to implement one opAssign method for assigning a
 specific type, but now I've ran into the issue that assigning class
 objects to null doesn't work anymore.. :/

That's a bug, please file.

-Steve

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6378

On 7/25/11, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote:
 On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:23:07 -0400, Andrej Mitrovic
 <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote:

 class Foo
 {
     void opAssign(int bar)
     {
     }
 }

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

 test.d(17): Error: function test.Foo.opAssign (int bar) is not
 callable using argument types (void*)
 test.d(17): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (null) of type
 void* to int

 I just wanted to implement one opAssign method for assigning a
 specific type, but now I've ran into the issue that assigning class
 objects to null doesn't work anymore.. :/

 That's a bug, please file.

 -Steve

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Diego_Canuh=E9?= <canuhedc gmail.com> writes:

Hi,
isn't that the way it's supposed to work? I mean

void show(int a) { writeln(a); }

void main() { show(null); }

won't compile either.
Shouldn't bar be some kind of pointer?

btw, today I read "opAssign can no longer be overloaded for class objects"
here:

http://www.d-programming-language.org/features2.html

is that no longer valid?

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:54:54 -0400, Diego Canuh=C3=A9 <canuhedc gmail.co=
m>  =

wrote:

 Hi,
 isn't that the way it's supposed to work? I mean

 void show(int a) { writeln(a); }

 void main() { show(null); }

 won't compile either.
 Shouldn't bar be some kind of pointer?

null should be considered as the type of the class, not void *.  You  =

should not be able to override the behavior of opAssign as it pertains t=
o  =

assigning to a class instance.  In other words, you should *never* be ab=
le  =

to override x =3D null where x is a class instance.

 btw, today I read "opAssign can no longer be overloaded for class  =

 objects"
 here:

 http://www.d-programming-language.org/features2.html

 is that no longer valid?

Here is the spec.  I would not trust that features2, it's probably out o=
f  =

date.

http://www.d-programming-language.org/operatoroverloading.html#Assignmen=
t

-Steve