Thread overview | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
June 08, 2004 Casting syntax | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object, wouldn't it make sense to allow: x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value? |
June 08, 2004 Re: Casting syntax | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jeroen van Bemmel | On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 07:58:01 +0200, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
> Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object, wouldn't it make sense to allow:
>
> x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value?
obviously,
but this was discussed before and rejected.
Ant
|
June 08, 2004 Re: Casting syntax | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Ant | Ant wrote: > On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 07:58:01 +0200, Jeroen van Bemmel wrote: > > >>Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object, wouldn't it make sense to allow: >> >>x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value? > > > obviously, > but this was discussed before and rejected. > > Ant It has been mentioned before. It looks like a fine suggestion to me, but I don't care enough about it to fight for it. I like the cast(int) x syntax. I think that's good enough. -- Justin (a/k/a jcc7) http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/ |
June 08, 2004 Re: Casting syntax | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jeroen van Bemmel | In article <ca3kiu$2r17$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Jeroen van Bemmel says... > >Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object, wouldn't it make sense to allow: > >x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value? Sure. Another nice one is (one of the many ways that) C++ does it: > int(x) That to me is the ultimate in simplicity, and it might even call a constructor in the case of a class. However, I, too, like Walter's approach, so I'm happy to leave things as they are. Jill |
June 09, 2004 Re: Casting syntax | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jeroen van Bemmel | Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
> Since casting can be considered as invoking a function on an object, wouldn't it make sense to allow:
>
> x.cast( int ) where x can be any object or scalar value?
The problem of this is that it looks like a function call that takes a type as argument. As long as types cannot be handled like that in D in general, I think it is a good idea to leave the cast syntax as it is without trying to make it look similar to something that is fundamentally different.
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation