April 29, 2012
Based on my previous thread (http://forum.dlang.org/thread/rpcqefmyqigftxsgsqui@forum.dlang.org), I got the question whether it is possible to restrict "alias this"?
Similar to templates function, e.g. "void foo(T)(T value) if (isNumeric!(T) ...", but it should be limited here so that it does not interact with the cast or something other.
As far as I know, "alias this" is an implicit cast. And just like an explicit cast (opCast) it should be possible to restrict it.

Otherwise, I have unfortunately run out of ideas how I can allow an implicit conversion.
April 29, 2012
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:14:09 +0200, Namespace <rswhite4@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Based on my previous thread (http://forum.dlang.org/thread/rpcqefmyqigftxsgsqui@forum.dlang.org), I got the question whether it is possible to restrict "alias this"?
> Similar to templates function, e.g. "void foo(T)(T value) if (isNumeric!(T) ...", but it should be limited here so that it does not interact with the cast or something other.
> As far as I know, "alias this" is an implicit cast. And just like an explicit cast (opCast) it should be possible to restrict it.
>
> Otherwise, I have unfortunately run out of ideas how I can allow an implicit conversion.

What do you mean restrict it?
April 29, 2012
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 11:24:00 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:14:09 +0200, Namespace <rswhite4@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Based on my previous thread (http://forum.dlang.org/thread/rpcqefmyqigftxsgsqui@forum.dlang.org), I got the question whether it is possible to restrict "alias this"?
>> Similar to templates function, e.g. "void foo(T)(T value) if (isNumeric!(T) ...", but it should be limited here so that it does not interact with the cast or something other.
>> As far as I know, "alias this" is an implicit cast. And just like an explicit cast (opCast) it should be possible to restrict it.
>>
>> Otherwise, I have unfortunately run out of ideas how I can allow an implicit conversion.
>
> What do you mean restrict it?

I mean that you can limit it similar as you can with templates. In my code i'm using "alias this" to enable an implicit conversion from any class, e.g. Foo, to Ref!Foo. Ref is an struct which checks if the value of Foo is null. If it's null a error message will let you know, that you have a problem with one of your objects (i hate the access violation message, that's the original reason for that).

But if i cast with a class, that implements the implicit conversion, as in the following:

[code]
class A {
	mixin TRef!(A);
}

class B : A { }

A a1 = new B();

B b1 = cast(B) a1.access; // <- problem
[/code]

the cast will implicit convert with "alias this" to Ref!B. And that isn't what i want and neither what should happen. In this case a limit to "alias this" would be great. A limitation, that "alias this" must not convert the cast to Ref!B.
April 29, 2012
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:28:05 +0200, Namespace <rswhite4@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 11:24:00 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:14:09 +0200, Namespace <rswhite4@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Based on my previous thread (http://forum.dlang.org/thread/rpcqefmyqigftxsgsqui@forum.dlang.org), I got the question whether it is possible to restrict "alias this"?
>>> Similar to templates function, e.g. "void foo(T)(T value) if (isNumeric!(T) ...", but it should be limited here so that it does not interact with the cast or something other.
>>> As far as I know, "alias this" is an implicit cast. And just like an explicit cast (opCast) it should be possible to restrict it.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, I have unfortunately run out of ideas how I can allow an implicit conversion.
>>
>> What do you mean restrict it?
>
> I mean that you can limit it similar as you can with templates. In my code i'm using "alias this" to enable an implicit conversion from any class, e.g. Foo, to Ref!Foo. Ref is an struct which checks if the value of Foo is null. If it's null a error message will let you know, that you have a problem with one of your objects (i hate the access violation message, that's the original reason for that).
>
> But if i cast with a class, that implements the implicit conversion, as in the following:
>
> [code]
> class A {
> 	mixin TRef!(A);
> }
>
> class B : A { }
>
> A a1 = new B();
>
> B b1 = cast(B) a1.access; // <- problem
> [/code]
>
> the cast will implicit convert with "alias this" to Ref!B. And that isn't what i want and neither what should happen. In this case a limit to "alias this" would be great. A limitation, that "alias this" must not convert the cast to Ref!B.

But that's not what happens. a1's compile-time type is A, so the compiler looks
up 'access' in A, but finds nothing. So it tries the alias this, gets a Ref!A,
and calls access on that. At this point, T is A, so access returns an A.

Then, the compiler tries to convert that A to a B, and gets confused. This is
absolutely a bug. In fact, it is the bug Jesse Phillips reported[1].


[1]: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8001
April 29, 2012
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 17:29:03 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 14:28:05 +0200, Namespace <rswhite4@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 11:24:00 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:14:09 +0200, Namespace <rswhite4@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Based on my previous thread (http://forum.dlang.org/thread/rpcqefmyqigftxsgsqui@forum.dlang.org), I got the question whether it is possible to restrict "alias this"?
>>>> Similar to templates function, e.g. "void foo(T)(T value) if (isNumeric!(T) ...", but it should be limited here so that it does not interact with the cast or something other.
>>>> As far as I know, "alias this" is an implicit cast. And just like an explicit cast (opCast) it should be possible to restrict it.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, I have unfortunately run out of ideas how I can allow an implicit conversion.
>>>
>>> What do you mean restrict it?
>>
>> I mean that you can limit it similar as you can with templates. In my code i'm using "alias this" to enable an implicit conversion from any class, e.g. Foo, to Ref!Foo. Ref is an struct which checks if the value of Foo is null. If it's null a error message will let you know, that you have a problem with one of your objects (i hate the access violation message, that's the original reason for that).
>>
>> But if i cast with a class, that implements the implicit conversion, as in the following:
>>
>> [code]
>> class A {
>> 	mixin TRef!(A);
>> }
>>
>> class B : A { }
>>
>> A a1 = new B();
>>
>> B b1 = cast(B) a1.access; // <- problem
>> [/code]
>>
>> the cast will implicit convert with "alias this" to Ref!B. And that isn't what i want and neither what should happen. In this case a limit to "alias this" would be great. A limitation, that "alias this" must not convert the cast to Ref!B.
>
> But that's not what happens. a1's compile-time type is A, so the compiler looks
> up 'access' in A, but finds nothing. So it tries the alias this, gets a Ref!A,
> and calls access on that. At this point, T is A, so access returns an A.
>
> Then, the compiler tries to convert that A to a B, and gets confused. This is
> absolutely a bug. In fact, it is the bug Jesse Phillips reported[1].
>
>
> [1]: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8001

Yes, I've just noticed that. Are there already workarounds for that problem?
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home