On 6/18/18 2:57 PM, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
On Monday, 18 June 2018 at 17:58:11 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 6/18/18 1:25 PM, bauss wrote:
On Monday, 18 June 2018 at 17:16:29 UTC, aliak wrote:
On Monday, 18 June 2018 at 14:19:30 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 6/18/18 7:16 AM, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
On Sunday, 18 May 2014 at 08:15:08 UTC, Steffen Wenz wrote:
Hi,
Just noticed that using UFCS does not work for nested functions,
and was wondering whether that's intended, and what the rationale
behind it is:
I just had the same question.
I can imagine that the context pointer of nested functions
complicates things, but making `bar` `static` does not help. Has
anything changed in recent years regarding the difficulty of
implementing UFCS for nested functions? Would it be easier to only
support static nested functions?
```
void main() {
static void bar(int x) {}
int x;
x.bar(); // Error: no property 'bar' for type 'int'
}
```
It's never been supported, and likely will not be. I think the idea
is that you can override expected behavior inside by accidentally
defining some function locally with the same name.
Wondering how this is different than with non-nested functions? If a
global function has the same name as a member function then the
member function takes precedence. So wouldn't the same thing just
apply here if it were supported?
I second this.
What then can happen is that your local calls can get hijacked from
outside the module, if someone happens to define something later that
you happened to import. D tries to avoid such possibilities.
There's not much precedent for local symbols being overridden by
module-level symbols.
I don't understand. What local symbol would be overwritten by which
module-level symbol?
In other words, if UFCS meant that module-level symbols took precedent
over local symbols, then it's backwards in terms of which place usually
wins. Generally it's the local symbols.
Whatever the concerns, what is the difference regarding these concerns
between this:
```
// Valid today
void bar(int) {}
void main() {
int x;
b.bar;
}
```
and this:
```
\\ Invalid today
void main() {
static void bar(int) {}
int x;
x.bar;
}
```
It's a good question, I don't think it has a particularly satisfying
answer. But one thing I will note, is that this is valid today:
void bar(int) {writeln("module");}
void main() {
static void bar(int) {writeln("local");}
int x;
x.bar; // "module"
}
Adding UFCS support to locals, which one would be the expected call?
It's difficult to imagine the local being the lower priority, but it
would have to be that way to avoid code breakage.
-Steve
