Issue 1974 - What's your opinion?

RazvanN razvan.nitu1305 at
Thu Oct 24 08:02:28 UTC 2019

Hello everyone,

I am currently trying to solve old issues but some of them I'm 
not entirely sure how to handle. One of them is 1974 [1]. Here's 
the thing:

struct Foo { int y; void opAddAssign(int z) { y += z; } }
struct Bar { Foo fou; Foo test() { return fou; } }
void main() {
   Bar x;
   x.fou.y = 0;
   x.test() += 1337;

The problem is that  x.test() += 1337; calls opAddAssign on a 
temporary and the person that filed the bug report claimed that 
this should be an error since the call is useless (in this case).

I have responded to the issue with the following:

"This is a bit problematic because there are 2 points of view on 

1. From a high-level point of view, the bug report is valid, you 
are trying to assign to an rvalue (x.test() = x.test() + 1337) 
which should an error.

2. From a lowering point of view you are basically calling the 
member function of a temporary object (x.test.opAddAssign(1337)), 
which by the current rules is valid behavior.

I guess that what could be implemented is something along the 
lines of: if the opAssign/op*Assign function is pure, then you 
can error/warn because the call has no effect, otherwise it is 
possible that the assign function has side effects so calling it 
is correct."

What are your thoughts on this? Should be close the issue as an 
invalid one?



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list