On 27 August 2012 03:51, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
On 8/26/2012 5:06 PM, Manu wrote:
type that is technically equivalent, but foo's type would have the bonus default
arg in its type record, just as a function pointer that were declared explicitly.
That's the way it used to work. The problem is, what are those types? Are they the same types or not? You're saying sometimes they are the same type, sometimes they are not. It's a mess.
They are always equivalent. The default args are more like metadata.
At what point does the compiler become confused? They never interact... The
expected behaviour seems obvious to me, foo and bar should effectively be:
int function(int a = 1) foo = ..;
int function(int a) bar = ...;
It seems obvious only in the trivial case. What if you passed foo to a function? Now what type is it? What is the mangling for the type?
Well the function you pass foo to will define the type is receives.
If it receives by template, then it'll receive the default args, if it defines the function pointer type it receives explicitly (or uses another compatible definition), the default args may be lost (or different) in the new instance across the function call.
I don't see why it needs to be mangled in. The linker doesn't care.
The trouble for function pointers, is that any default args would need to be
part of the type, not the declaration.
I thought they were part of the type already? I would have thought that's where
they should be. Why is their new home more 'proper'?
Because are the types the same or not?
They're equivalent, but not identical; one has some metadata the other doesn't have.
I know it broke code (for many others, too), and I'm very sorry about that,
but I don't see another way out.
It's a rather major breakage. I've seen you reject far more important changes
solely on the grounds that they are a breaking change before...
Unfortunately, it was already broken, as the bug report showed. It's a matter of where the crack shows up.
Does the bug report actually demonstrate how it was causing anybody any problems? It seemed a rather contrived scenario that just illustrated that there was a bug.
Also, I think it could be fixed so the scenario in the bug report worked as expected (I still don't understand why it did't work in the first place).