[Issue 17080] Can assign member-function-ptr to free-function-ptr

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17080

--- Comment #10 from Sprink <sprink.noreply at gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Dicebot from comment #9)
> Because I disagree with your proposed fix and overall judgement of the
> problem but don't want to argue about it in context of this issue.

In what context then? After a fix for this is pushed out the door without even
discussing alternative solutions to the problem because the test code in an
issue was a tad bit different? These issues are directly related, pushing one
fix out the door without even discussing alternatives is just nonsense.

> It is more intrusive change (will fail in more context) and I think that
> getting address of a method as a delegate is perfectly legitimate code - it
> would allow to set `dg.ptr` manually later to call it with arbitrary context.

Which wouldn't be allowed in @safe code and would be more error prone cause
dg.ptr is of type void*. When a very specific type is needed for the delegate
to work properly. Adding a member-to-function pointer type would allow for it
to be used in @safe code, would be less error prone as you can work with the
type system to ensure you pass the correct type, rather than void* for
"dg.ptr". It'll also allow D to better interface with C++, related to issue
16527. What exactly don't you agree with here? With your fix issue 3720 is
still a problem with a "dg.ptr" set to null, doesn't work in @safe code and you
can convert any pointer type to void* for "dg.ptr".

--