opCast overloading and opCast_r
Oskar Linde
oskar.lindeREM at OVEgmail.com
Fri Dec 1 06:44:33 PST 2006
nazo wrote:
> I think that cast is binary operation with value and type. And I made
> groundless patch(I tested with dmdfe and gdc-2.0-dev). This idea break
> old opCast call and have side effects like allowing "cast(value)". But
> it support other pattern like "type + value". How about this idea?
> #sorry for my poor English
>
> val_a op val_b (Example: a + b)
> val_a.opfunc(val_b)
> val_b.opfunc_r(val_a)
>
> val op type (Example: a + B, cast(B)a)
> val.opfunc!(type)()
> type.opfunc_r(val)
>
> type op val (Example: A + b)
> type.opfunc(val)
> val.opfunc_r!(type)()
>
> type_a op type_b (Example: A + B)
> type_a.opfunc!(type_b)()
> type_b.opfunc_r!(type_a)()
Interesting ideas. I can't see off hand what uses mixing types and
expressions in binary operations could have. Do you have any such in
mind? Also, doesn't this introduce ambiguities?
Type *val; // Type.opfunc(val) or declaration of ptr to Type?
Allowing
T opCast(T)() {...}
is great. The next step should be making opCast conversions implicit
instead of explicit and thereby usable. :)
This also calls for better template specialization methods...
opCast_r is a really interesting idea close to C++ implicit
constructors. They should also be implicit to be of much use.
/Oskar
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list