• Alex (36/36) May 11 2018 Hi all,
• Steven Schveighoffer (6/9) May 11 2018 operators don't follow pointers.
• Alex (4/14) May 11 2018 Ah!

Alex <sascha.orlov gmail.com> writes:

Hi all,
I'm sure, I didn't find something obvious, but:

Given this:

´´´
void main()
{
	auto s = S();
	s.operator;
	assert(s.myOp(42));
	assert(42 in s);

	auto sptr = new S();
	sptr.operator;
	assert(sptr.myOp(42));
	//assert(42 in sptr);  //<-- does not compile
}

struct S
{
	void operator() const
	{
		assert(true);
	}

	bool opBinaryRight(string op)(size_t input) const if(op == "in")
	{
		return true;
	}

	bool myOp(size_t input)
	{
		return input in this;
	}
}
´´´

The last line in the main does not compile with the message
source/app.d(9,9): Error: incompatible types for `(42) in 
(sptr)`: `int` and `S*`

This behaves differently, w.r.t. to an arbitrary method, like 
"operator". Why? Is there any workaround?

Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On 5/11/18 8:53 AM, Alex wrote:

 
 This behaves differently, w.r.t. to an arbitrary method, like 
 "operator". Why? Is there any workaround?

operators don't follow pointers.

Imagine if you had a struct that overloads "+" and then you wanted to 
use pointer arithmetic, but instead it called ptr.opBinary.

The workaround is to dereference the pointer. e.g. 42 in *sptr;

-Steve

Alex <sascha.orlov gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 11 May 2018 at 15:24:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
 On 5/11/18 8:53 AM, Alex wrote:

 
 This behaves differently, w.r.t. to an arbitrary method, like 
 "operator". Why? Is there any workaround?

 operators don't follow pointers.

 Imagine if you had a struct that overloads "+" and then you 
 wanted to use pointer arithmetic, but instead it called 
 ptr.opBinary.

Ah!

 The workaround is to dereference the pointer. e.g. 42 in *sptr;

 -Steve

Thanks a lot!