clear() and UFCS

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 25-05-2012 16:50, deadalnix wrote:
> Le 25/05/2012 15:21, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
>> On 25-05-2012 15:17, deadalnix wrote:
>>> Le 25/05/2012 15:04, Alex Rønne Petersen a écrit :
>>>> So I was writing a container class and in some test code, I called
>>>> container.clear(). Reasonable enough, right? Hell, it even compiled!
>>>>
>>>> Turns out, my program completely broke at runtime. Apparently, I'd
>>>> forgotten to implement clear() on my container class, and
>>>> *object.clear() was being called instead*.
>>>>
>>>> I don't blame UFCS for this. It just happened to be the reason this
>>>> compiled at all. But, what I do think is: clear is the *ABSOLUTELY MOST
>>>> HORRIBLE NAME EVER* for a function that actually finalizes and
>>>> zeroes an
>>>> object. Did it not seem obvious to call it, I don't know, *finalize*?
>>>> And even ignoring the naming, having a symbol called clear in the
>>>> 'global' namespace is absolute insanity.
>>>>
>>>> Am I the only person with this opinion?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why is UFCS involved here ?
>>
>> Since the clear method didn't exist on the type, the call was mapped to
>> the clear function in the global scope. This is UFCS.
>>
>
> OK, I get it ! Weird side effect :D
>
> BTW, where is the documentation about clear and emplace ? I can't find
> it on dlang.org .

I think clear() is basically entirely undocumented still.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex at lycus.org
http://lycus.org