clear() and UFCS

Artur Skawina art.08.09 at
Fri May 25 10:13:47 PDT 2012

On 05/25/12 18:11, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 25.05.2012 15:04, schrieb Alex Rønne Petersen:
>> So I was writing a container class and in some test code, I called
>> container.clear(). Reasonable enough, right? Hell, it even compiled!
>> Turns out, my program completely broke at runtime. Apparently, I'd
>> forgotten to implement clear() on my container class, and
>> *object.clear() was being called instead*.
>> I don't blame UFCS for this. It just happened to be the reason this
>> compiled at all. But, what I do think is: clear is the *ABSOLUTELY MOST
>> HORRIBLE NAME EVER* for a function that actually finalizes and zeroes an
>> object. Did it not seem obvious to call it, I don't know, *finalize*?
>> And even ignoring the naming, having a symbol called clear in the
>> 'global' namespace is absolute insanity.
>> Am I the only person with this opinion?
> I completely agree! Had the same situation before...
> Also I hate that UFCS is doing the same thing that properties did in the beginning and have no way to enforce a specific usage. I strongly believe that it is a (often important) decision of the library architect if a function is to be called normally or as member function style.

@method ?


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list