• spir (12/12) Dec 07 2010 Hello again,
• bearophile (4/5) Dec 07 2010 You may find some trick to do something like that, but it's not how D is...

spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:

Hello again,

I started to be found of defining types which basically are arrays with fre=
e functions, instead of creating a struct or class with methods. Not only w=
e still have pseudo-method syntax (for arrays only), but this allows custom=
izing the type when needed.
But: is there a way to define functions corresponding to language operation=
s (opEquals, opIndex, toString...) without creating a true type?

Thank you,
Denis
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
vit esse estrany =E2=98=A3

spir.wikidot.com

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

spir:

 But: is there a way to define functions corresponding to language operations
(opEquals, opIndex, toString...) without creating a true type?

You may find some trick to do something like that, but it's not how D is
supposed to be used. In D operators belong in a struct/class/enum. "alias this"
sometimes helps.

Bye,
bearophile