• =?iso-8859-1?Q?Robert_M._M=FCnch?= (9/9) May 25 2019 Wouldn't it make sense if this would be possible? It would shorten the
• Adam D. Ruppe (10/11) May 25 2019 I'd probably just write it

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Robert_M._M=FCnch?= <robert.muench saphirion.com> writes:

Wouldn't it make sense if this would be possible? It would shorten the 
function interface in cases, where no specialization of m is needed but 
still makes it possible to override.

myfunc(myObj o, myType m = o.getmyTypeValue()){...}

The compiler complains, that o is an undefined identifier.

-- 
Robert M. Münch
http://www.saphirion.com
smarter | better | faster

Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 25 May 2019 at 16:25:53 UTC, Robert M. Münch wrote:
 myfunc(myObj o, myType m = o.getmyTypeValue()){...}

I'd probably just write it

myType m = null) {
   if(m is null) m = o.getmyTypeValue;
}

or

myfunc(myObj o) { /* use the default */ }
myfunc(myObj o, myType m) { /* use the provided m */ }


You might make the first one final if you only want the one 
overridden.