[Issue 9257] [ER] New optional "operator" keyword to validate magic functions

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9257


bearophile_hugs at eml.cc changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bearophile_hugs at eml.cc


--- Comment #1 from bearophile_hugs at eml.cc 2013-01-02 09:41:47 PST ---
(In reply to comment #0)

>   operator opBinary(string op)(S rhs); //Fine
>   operator opBinary(string op)(S rhs1, S rhs2); //Error, wrong number of
> arguments
>   operator opOpBinary(string op)(Type rhs); //Error, did you mean opOpAssign?
>   operator opcmp(Type rhs); //Error, did you mean opCmp?
>   static bool opEquals(S s1, S s2); //Error, opEquals cannot be declared as
> static
> }
> //----
> 
> This would help with keeping in line with D's safety standard, in particular,
> the override keyword.
> 
> (from the discussion:
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/iubdngjksicwxugrqesc@forum.dlang.org)

Thank you for opening a ER. I was too much busy to do it.

I don't know if the solution proposed here is the right one, but being aware
that a problem exists is the first step toward its solution.

Probably a pseudo-keyword like "@operator" is more reasonable than "operator".


> Also want to point out: This bug has even made it into phobos.

I suggest to show here some of the lines of code that contain that bug.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------