discrimination of constructors with same number of parameters
Steven Schveighoffer
schveiguy at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 30 09:19:08 PST 2010
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:08:56 -0500, spir <denis.spir at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:10:00 +0100
> "Jérôme M. Berger" <jeberger at free.fr> wrote:
>
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> > What I would suggest is static factory methods. The issue with any
>> kind
>> > of typedef (be it with the soon-to-be-deprecated typedef keyword or
>> with
>> > a proxy struct), is that what does this mean?
>> >
>> > auto obj = new Foo([1, 2, 3], "blah");
>> >
>> > Is "blah" a filename or a message?
>> >
>> --> Error, Foo (int[], string) does not exist.
>
> Yes, you are right. Typedef-like solutions need core support by the
> language with a kind of hint to the compiler... playing the role of type
> in Jérôme's sample below.
I expected a definition like this:
typedef string filename;
this(int[] x, string message);
this(int[] x, filename file);
Which would be more ambiguous in usage. So your version (with two
typedefs) is better.
>
>> > Whereas, if you use factory methods:
>> >
>> > auto obj = Foo.createWithFilename([1,2,3], "blah"); // "blah" is a
>> filename
>> > auto obj = Foo.createWithMessage([1,2,3], "blah"); // "blah" is a
>> message
>
> Factory methods are definitely convenient. The single objection is
> rather conceptual: it defeats the purpose of a major language feature,
> namely constructor; which happens to have a clear meaning from the
> modelling point of view.
This doesn't mean much to me. I don't see the benefit of using 'new' vs.
using a static factory method. What is the "clear meaning" that
constructors have that factory methods do not?
>
>> > The code becomes crystal clear. Reduce verbosity as you see fit ;)
>> >
>> auto obj = new Foo ([1, 2, 3], Filename ("blah"));
>> auto obj = new Foo ([1, 2, 3], Message ("blah"));
>
> Conceptually, I would prefere this -- at the use place. But if requires
> obfuscating the code at the definition point (with eg wrapper structs),
> is it worth it?
>
> If we could write eg:
> typedef string Message;
> auto obj = new Foo ([1, 2, 3], Message ("blah"));
> then I would be happy, I guess ;-)
>
Wait, this isn't any different than using a wrapper struct...
struct Message
{
string value;
}
struct Filename
{
string value;
}
class Foo
{
string message;
string filename;
int[] arr;
this(int[] arr, Message m) {this.arr = arr; this.message = m.value;}
this(int[] arr, Filename f) {this.arr = arr; this.filename = f.value;}
}
How is that "obfuscation"?
I still prefer the factory method solution, as it doesn't add unecessary
types.
-Steve
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn
mailing list