Should this work?

[Regan Heath]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 19:47:07 -0000, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx>  
wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 02:14:41AM +1000, Manu wrote:
> [...]
>> One more, again here to reduce spam...
>>
>> 2 overloads exist:
>> void func(const(char)* str);
>> void func(const(char)[] str);
>>
>> Called with literal string:
>> func("literal");
>>
>> called with argument types (string) matches both.
>>
>> I appreciate the convenience of the automatic string literal ->
>> const(char)* cast. But in this case, surely it should just choose the
>> array version of the function, like it does it calling with a 'string'
>> variable?  The convenience should be just that, a convenience, not a
>> hard rule...?
>
> File a bug against dmd for this? I agree that it should match the array
> overload, not the pointer overload. I'm not sure if it's fixable,
> though, due to the way overloads are resolved currently. But maybe Kenji
> has a way. ;)

I think this should remain an error, for the same reason as any other  
overload resolution error; you might have one, and add the second and  
silently behaviour changes - this is bad.

Instead.. isn't the first overload strictly incorrect, unless that first  
overload expects a null terminated **UTF-8** string.. if it's a C function  
it should be const(ubyte)* str right?  What overload does D select if you  
use that instead?

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/