On 23.2.2014. 13:51, luka8088 wrote:
> That is exactly what I wanted to point out! I reduced the example code
> to make that point more obvious:
Just one note. I know how this works currently in D and how it works in
C++. What I am asking here is not how it works but is this a good idea
as I just
On 22.2.2014. 23:43, simendsjo wrote:
> On 02/22/2014 11:33 PM, Francesco Cattoglio wrote:
> The problem isn't about optional parenthesis or properties. It's the
> fact that
> you can redefine a symbol to be something entierly different, and that this
> difference will only be seen if you are looki
On Saturday, 22 February 2014 at 22:42:24 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
The problem isn't about optional parenthesis or properties.
It's the fact that
you can redefine a symbol to be something entierly different,
and that this
difference will only be seen if you are looking at the symbol
through the
"
On 02/22/2014 11:33 PM, Francesco Cattoglio wrote:
On Saturday, 22 February 2014 at 17:21:50 UTC, luka8088 wrote:
It seems to me that the following code should be illegal, but I am
uncertain of it so I am posting here for a confirmation before I post it
on bug tracker:
[snip]
Nice find. I gues
On Saturday, 22 February 2014 at 17:21:50 UTC, luka8088 wrote:
It seems to me that the following code should be illegal, but I
am
uncertain of it so I am posting here for a confirmation before
I post it
on bug tracker:
[snip]
Nice find. I guess we could add this to the list of "ugly code
cau
On 02/22/2014 09:43 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
It looks like name hiding, which I am familiar from C++. Name hiding
does not differentiate between functions and variables.
Ali
The problem is that hiding a name *is* a problem. When you are hiding a
name,
then a class would no longer behave as yo
On 02/22/2014 10:00 AM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 February 2014 at 17:41:58 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>>
>> The code uses the two objects through the A interface and x() is a
>> virtual function on that interface.
>>
>> When the C interface is used then we get C.x, which happens to be
>>
On 02/22/2014 12:06 PM, Nynn007 wrote:
>> The code uses the two objects through the A interface and x() is a
>> virtual function on that interface.
> [...]
>> Ali
I agree. :)
>
> The book "Programming in D" (r651) says in chapter "57.7 Using the
> subclass in place of the superclass", in the ex
The code uses the two objects through the A interface and x()
is a virtual function on that interface.
[...]
Ali
The book "Programming in D" (r651) says in chapter "57.7 Using
the subclass in place of the superclass", in the example about
Clock and AlarmClock :
void use(Clock clock) {
On Saturday, 22 February 2014 at 17:41:58 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
The code uses the two objects through the A interface and x()
is a virtual function on that interface.
When the C interface is used then we get C.x, which happens to
be hiding the x() function of the base class.
It looks nor
On 02/22/2014 09:21 AM, luka8088 wrote:> It seems to me that the
following code should be illegal, but I am
> uncertain of it so I am posting here for a confirmation before I post it
> on bug tracker:
>
>
> http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/dae728734cc6
>
>
> import std.stdio;
>
> class A {
>string x ()
On 02/22/2014 06:21 PM, luka8088 wrote:
import std.stdio;
class A {
string x () { return "A"; };
}
class B : A {
override string x () { return "B"; };
}
class C : A {
string x = "C"; // should this be illegal?
}
void main () {
A o1 = new B();
writeln(o1.x); // B
A o2 = new
It seems to me that the following code should be illegal, but I am
uncertain of it so I am posting here for a confirmation before I post it
on bug tracker:
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/dae728734cc6
import std.stdio;
class A {
string x () { return "A"; };
}
class B : A {
override string x () { re
13 matches
Mail list logo
