Thread overview
Re: Using typedefed types as covariant return types
Feb 11, 2007
Rick Mann
Feb 12, 2007
Bruno Medeiros
Feb 12, 2007
Frits van Bommel
Feb 12, 2007
Bruno Medeiros
Feb 17, 2007
Rick Mann
February 11, 2007
Bill Baxter Wrote:

> What are you reading that makes you think CFStringRef is "derived" from CFTypeRef?

It seems to be implied by the "Implicit Conversions" section of <http://www.digitalmars.com/d/type.html>:

"A typedef or enum can be implicitly converted to its base type, but going the other way requires an explicit conversion. "
February 12, 2007
Rick Mann wrote:
> Bill Baxter Wrote:
> 
>> What are you reading that makes you think CFStringRef is "derived" from CFTypeRef?
> 
> It seems to be implied by the "Implicit Conversions" section of <http://www.digitalmars.com/d/type.html>:
> 
> "A typedef or enum can be implicitly converted to its base type, but going the other way requires an explicit conversion. "

Implicitly convertible doesn't mean a type is a subtype of another. Altough in this case of typedef and enums I think they could be subtypes of the base type.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
February 12, 2007
Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Rick Mann wrote:
>> Bill Baxter Wrote:
>> "A typedef or enum can be implicitly converted to its base type, but going the other way requires an explicit conversion. "
> 
> Implicitly convertible doesn't mean a type is a subtype of another. Altough in this case of typedef and enums I think they could be subtypes of the base type.

Perhaps he meant the "to its base type" part? I could see someone mixing that up with the same term used in class hierarchies...
February 12, 2007
Frits van Bommel wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> Rick Mann wrote:
>>> Bill Baxter Wrote:
>>> "A typedef or enum can be implicitly converted to its base type, but going the other way requires an explicit conversion. "
>>
>> Implicitly convertible doesn't mean a type is a subtype of another. Altough in this case of typedef and enums I think they could be subtypes of the base type.
> 
> Perhaps he meant the "to its base type" part? I could see someone mixing that up with the same term used in class hierarchies...

True enough, that may cause some confusion.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
February 17, 2007
Frits van Bommel Wrote:

> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> > Rick Mann wrote:
> >> Bill Baxter Wrote:
> >> "A typedef or enum can be implicitly converted to its base type, but
> >> going the other way requires an explicit conversion. "
> > 
> > Implicitly convertible doesn't mean a type is a subtype of another. Altough in this case of typedef and enums I think they could be subtypes of the base type.
> 
> Perhaps he meant the "to its base type" part? I could see someone mixing that up with the same term used in class hierarchies...

In that case, I'd like to make it a feature request. It seems only natural to be able to use typedefs in this manner. Should I file a formal request via bug?