[GSoC Proposal] Statically Checked Measurement Units

[Cristi Cobzarenco]

Yeah, you're right (case (1) also works with a template ctor as well - in
C++ this would allow for implicit conversions as well, that's why I thought
about using it this way). As I said, I had already abandoned this approach
and decided on using .mangleof sorting anyway for elegance. I think my
proposal write-up is almost ready, will submit it today or tomorrow.



(Cristi Cobzarenco)
Pofile: http://www.google.com/profiles/cristi.cobzarenco


On 30 March 2011 15:26, David Nadlinger <see at klickverbot.at> wrote:

> On 3/30/11 11:21 AM, Cristi Cobzarenco wrote:
>
>> Seems right to me, am I missing something?
>>
>
> opAssign isn't taken into consideration when initializing variables or
> passing values to functions. An example probably says more than thousand
> words:
>
> ---
> struct Test {
>  ref Test opAssign(int i) {
>    value = i;
>    return this;
>  }
>  int value;
> }
>
> void foo(Test t) {}
>
> void main() {
>    // Neither of the following two lines compiles, IIRC:
>    Test t = 4; // (1)
>    foo(4); // (2)
> }
> ---
>
> You can make case (1) work by defining a static opCall taking an int, which
> will be called due to property syntax, but I can't think of any solution for
> (2).
>
> David
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20110330/0a09b5fb/attachment.html>