The following program doesn't compile:
class caller {
   caller opCall (out int i) {
      i = 10;
      return this;
   }
}

void main (char[][] args) {
   caller c = new caller;
   int x,y;
   c(x)(y);
}

It gives this error:
opcall.d(11): declaration main.x is already defined

Compiler bug?  Or did I do something stupid?

-- 
 - Mik Mifflin

In article <c133a2$1cun$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mik Mifflin says...

>void main (char[][] args) {
>   caller c = new caller;
>   int x,y;
>   c(x)(y);    <<----:
>}                    |
|
HERE

I don't think you can chain a function or opCall in that manner... The following works fine...

void main (char[][] args) {
caller c = new caller;
int x,y;
c(x);
c(y);
}

you should be able to do that. done similar things yet..

i'll have a closer look... uhm.. tomorrow..

"Andrew" <Andrew_member@pathlink.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:c13739$1jlt$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <c133a2$1cun$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mik Mifflin says...
>
> >void main (char[][] args) {
> >   caller c = new caller;
> >   int x,y;
> >   c(x)(y);    <<----:
> >}                    |
> |
> HERE
>
> I don't think you can chain a function or opCall in that manner... The following works fine...
>
> void main (char[][] args) {
> caller c = new caller;
> int x,y;
> c(x);
> c(y);
> }
>
>

Andrew wrote:

> In article <c133a2$1cun$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mik Mifflin says...
> 
>>void main (char[][] args) {
>>   caller c = new caller;
>>   int x,y;
>>   c(x)(y);    <<----:
>>}                    |
> |
> HERE
> 
> I don't think you can chain a function or opCall in that manner... The following works fine...
> 
> void main (char[][] args) {
> caller c = new caller;
> int x,y;
> c(x);
> c(y);
> }

I can in this instance, as I return a caller object.

-- 
 - Mik Mifflin

Andrew wrote:

[...]
> The following works fine...
[...]

However, a very misleading error message.

So long.

Mik Mifflin wrote:

> The following program doesn't compile:
> class caller {
>    caller opCall (out int i) {
>       i = 10;
>       return this;
>    }
> }
> 
> void main (char[][] args) {
>    caller c = new caller;
>    int x,y;
>    c(x)(y);
> }
> 
> It gives this error:
> opcall.d(11): declaration main.x is already defined
> 
> Compiler bug?  Or did I do something stupid?
> 

A temporary workaround is '(c(x)(y))', with the extra parentheses.  The
error goes away and it works as expected..

-- 
 - Mik Mifflin

Mik Mifflin wrote:

> A temporary workaround is '(c(x)(y))', with the extra parentheses.  The
> error goes away and it works as expected..

This is a cool thing. I am searching for something like that in the thread `[experts] opComma'.

`cast(void) c(x)(y)' also works.

So long.

In article <c138s9$1n7c$1@digitaldaemon.com>, davepermen says...
>
>you should be able to do that. done similar things yet..
>
>i'll have a closer look... uhm.. tomorrow..
>

IC. Could you please explain some of the advantages and disadvantages of doing things this way?

Other than being able to simultaneously assign a value to multiple variables, what are some other uses for this feature?

Thanks,
Andrew

Andrew wrote:

> In article <c138s9$1n7c$1@digitaldaemon.com>, davepermen says...
>>
>>you should be able to do that. done similar things yet..
>>
>>i'll have a closer look... uhm.. tomorrow..
>>
> 
> IC. Could you please explain some of the advantages and disadvantages of doing things this way?
> 
> Other than being able to simultaneously assign a value to multiple variables, what are some other uses for this feature?
> 
> Thanks,
> Andrew

I don't think the point is if anyone actually has a use for it, the point is that it should work, and does not.

-- 
 - Mik Mifflin

In article <c15bp3$2k3l$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mik Mifflin says...
>
>Andrew wrote:
>
>> In article <c138s9$1n7c$1@digitaldaemon.com>, davepermen says...
>>>
>>>you should be able to do that. done similar things yet..
>>>
>>>i'll have a closer look... uhm.. tomorrow..
>>>
>> 
>> IC. Could you please explain some of the advantages and disadvantages of doing things this way?
>> 
>> Other than being able to simultaneously assign a value to multiple variables, what are some other uses for this feature?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>
>I don't think the point is if anyone actually has a use for it, the point is that it should work, and does not.
>
>-- 
> - Mik Mifflin

I completely understand that Mik. I simply wanted to expand my knowledge. Thanks anyhow.

Andrew