structs, classes, interfaces - Part III, Solution

[Reiner Pope]

Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
>>
>> Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> interface IA { void foo(); }
>>> interface IB { int bar(); }
>>>
>>> struct A : IA { void foo() { writefln("hello"); }
>>> struct B : IB { int bar() { return 42; } }
>>>
>>> struct C : IA, IB {
>>>   mixin A;
>>>   mixin B;
>>> }
>> I believe this will be possible using:
>>
>> struct C : IA, IB {
>>   private A a;
>>   private B b;
>>   alias a this;
>>   alias b this;
>> }
>>
> 
> I don't doubt it isn't possible, but it needs to be implemented first too :)
> One problem I see in the new aliasing syntax is that it introduces two
> unnecessary symbols C.a and C.b as an side effect. (but it could allow you
> to choose between a.foo and b.foo if foo happens to conflict, though)

I wonder if we can extend the alias this syntax to get rid of the 
unnecessary symbols. Since, conceptually, aliasing just "binds" the 
second name to the first, giving the first variable a new name, why 
don't we just allow variables to be named "this". The code above becomes

struct C : IA, IB {
     A this;
     B this;
}

To me it's quite consistent with "alias  b this".


    -- Reiner