digitalmars.D.learn - Specify rhs at initialisation or assignment of typedef' d variable
- Cecil Ward (12/12) Jul 31 2017 Say I have used Typedef! to create some new type and I declare a
- inevzxui (4/17) Jul 31 2017 If struct + alias this is not strong enough the only solution is
- Cecil Ward (21/42) Jul 31 2017 I suspect that I am asking for something that literally makes no
- Cecil Ward (5/16) Jul 31 2017 Actually, it would be really nice to have some kind of safe
- Stefan Koch (9/15) Jul 31 2017 Please have a look at the bigEndian function and BigEndian struct
Say I have used Typedef! to create some new type and I declare a variable, constant or enum of that type. Is there a way that I can express a literal value on the rhs without having to use casts, as that seems to defeat the point of the nice type safety? I may be asking for the impossible or _illogical_ here. In any case, I still get to keep the nice feature of not being able to mix up types with assignment from one variable to another. Specific example is mac_addr_48_t my_mac_address = 0x112233445566uL; Which now produces a compile time error after I changed to use an alias = Typedef!uint64_t as opposed to just a straight alias = uint64_t earlier with no strong typing.
Jul 31 2017
On Monday, 31 July 2017 at 07:16:25 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote:Say I have used Typedef! to create some new type and I declare a variable, constant or enum of that type. Is there a way that I can express a literal value on the rhs without having to use casts, as that seems to defeat the point of the nice type safety? I may be asking for the impossible or _illogical_ here. In any case, I still get to keep the nice feature of not being able to mix up types with assignment from one variable to another. Specific example is mac_addr_48_t my_mac_address = 0x112233445566uL; Which now produces a compile time error after I changed to use an alias = Typedef!uint64_t as opposed to just a straight alias = uint64_t earlier with no strong typing.If struct + alias this is not strong enough the only solution is see is a helper template à la "octal" or "hexString", i.e a static cally checked string.
Jul 31 2017
On Monday, 31 July 2017 at 07:50:57 UTC, inevzxui wrote:On Monday, 31 July 2017 at 07:16:25 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote:I suspect that I am asking for something that literally makes no sense at all. I wanted to try and avoid opening the door to allowing the following kind of typing error now, eg enum ip_address = 0x11223344; mac_addr_48_t my_mac = cast(mac_addr_48_t) ip_address; as if we are going to the bother of introducing strong type checking with Typedef! then the last thing I want to do is encourage is a proliferation of casts. I realise something else now too - Issue 2: The thing is that I also immediately have to do a lot of work to make the simplest operators work anyway, such as in foreach( addr; base_mac_address .. base_mac_address + range ) where the + operator is producing compile-time errors now. So it just seems that the Typedef! feature immediately make life into a nightmare. I don't know if something based of the physical units module (using 'dimensionless' in this case) would work - perhaps it only handles floating point of various types? Or whether that would also involve a huge amount of work and still have issue 1 mentioned earlier. In any case, I have absolutely no clue how to even begin to start using the units module thing.Say I have used Typedef! to create some new type and I declare a variable, constant or enum of that type. Is there a way that I can express a literal value on the rhs without having to use casts, as that seems to defeat the point of the nice type safety? I may be asking for the impossible or _illogical_ here. In any case, I still get to keep the nice feature of not being able to mix up types with assignment from one variable to another. Specific example is mac_addr_48_t my_mac_address = 0x112233445566uL; Which now produces a compile time error after I changed to use an alias = Typedef!uint64_t as opposed to just a straight alias = uint64_t earlier with no strong typing.If struct + alias this is not strong enough the only solution is see is a helper template à la "octal" or "hexString", i.e a static cally checked string.
Jul 31 2017
On Monday, 31 July 2017 at 08:53:10 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote:On Monday, 31 July 2017 at 07:50:57 UTC, inevzxui wrote:Actually, it would be really nice to have some kind of safe initialisation helper that checks value ranges, as in this particular case I need to make sure that the literal 64-bit value fits in 48 bits.[...]I suspect that I am asking for something that literally makes no sense at all. I wanted to try and avoid opening the door to allowing the following kind of typing error now, eg enum ip_address = 0x11223344; mac_addr_48_t my_mac = cast(mac_addr_48_t) ip_address; as if we are going to the bother of introducing strong type checking with Typedef! then the last thing I want to do is encourage is a proliferation of casts. [...]
Jul 31 2017
On Monday, 31 July 2017 at 08:53:10 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote:[ ... ] I suspect that I am asking for something that literally makes no sense at all. I wanted to try and avoid opening the door to allowing the following kind of typing error now, eg enum ip_address = 0x11223344; [ ... ]Please have a look at the bigEndian function and BigEndian struct in SQLite-D https://github.com/UplinkCoder/sqlite-d/blob/master/source/utils.d The point here is writing your own struct and using alias-this yourself. Then you only need a function to produce constants of the right type. Such a function should be trivially CTFEable
Jul 31 2017