Function pointers/delegates default args were stealth removed?

[Manu]

On 27 August 2012 13:54, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:

> On Monday, August 27, 2012 11:38:52 Manu wrote:
> > On 27 August 2012 11:12, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
> > > and it makes no sense to use them with function pointers or function
> > > literals.
> >
> > If that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>
> You can't possibly really be using these functions with default arguments
> unless you're not really using them like function pointers, otherwise you
> wouldn't have been using the default arguments in the first place.


How do I use a function pointer 'like a function pointer' by your reasoning?
Is dynamic linkage not a valid use of function pointers?
It's possibly the *most* common use. Shared code is not exactly uncommon,
just that it's often automated with compiler sugar these days.
Manually binding dynamic code has become rare, but it's still valid.


Default arguments just do not make sense with function pointers, because
> they
> don't follow the function pointer, because it's a _pointer_ and has no
> knowledge of what it's pointing to. It's only at the declaration point of
> the
> function that the default argument exists, and that has _nothing_ to do
> with
> the function pointer.


Clearly, since it's a function pointer, I don't own the function its self,
or I'd just call that directly.
However, as you say, at the declaration point of the function pointer, I
can likewise inform the compiler of the default args.
If the default args were worked into the variable declaration, that might
work just as well as if it were in the type.

I don't really care so much HOW it works, only that it does. I think 99% of
my cases would be addressed by the def args living in the variable
declaration.


You might as well ask a reference of type Object what
> the arguments used to construct the derived class that it actually refers
> to
> were as expect a function pointer to have any clue about default arguments
> to
> the function that it points to.
>

I agree, in principle, but I've still lost a thoroughly useful feature.
Move it perhaps (to the declaration?), but don't *re-*move it (cough).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120827/915cf083/attachment.html>