void main()
{
  int i, j;
  int k = (i)+j;
}

[dmd 0.96] outputs: C style cast deprecated, use cast(i)(j)

"Ilya Zaitseff" <sark7@mail333.com> wrote in message news:opsbpwecsuaaezs2@ilya.tec.amursk.ru...
> void main()
> {
>    int i, j;
>    int k = (i)+j;
> }
>
> [dmd 0.96] outputs: C style cast deprecated, use cast(i)(j)

Such parsing ambiguities are why C style casts are deprecated <g>. (It is
parsed as (i)(+j), i.e. the + is seen as the unary plus operator.)

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:07:28 -0700, Walter wrote:

> "Ilya Zaitseff" <sark7@mail333.com> wrote in message news:opsbpwecsuaaezs2@ilya.tec.amursk.ru...
>> void main()
>> {
>>    int i, j;
>>    int k = (i)+j;
>> }
>>
>> [dmd 0.96] outputs: C style cast deprecated, use cast(i)(j)
> 
> Such parsing ambiguities are why C style casts are deprecated <g>. (It is
> parsed as (i)(+j), i.e. the + is seen as the unary plus operator.)

Does this mean the we can never have the construct ...

   '(' <identifier> ')' <operand> <expression>

in D?

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
27/Jul/04 11:33:09 AM

if the "unary plus" operator didn't exist, we wouldn't have this problem ;)

what the hell is it for anyway?  jill wants to know too.

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ce4bnm$1lla$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> if the "unary plus" operator didn't exist, we wouldn't have this problem
;)
>
> what the hell is it for anyway?  jill wants to know too.

For completeness. It should be overloadable, though.

"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:ce4bgd$1lir$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:07:28 -0700, Walter wrote:
>
> > "Ilya Zaitseff" <sark7@mail333.com> wrote in message news:opsbpwecsuaaezs2@ilya.tec.amursk.ru...
> >> void main()
> >> {
> >>    int i, j;
> >>    int k = (i)+j;
> >> }
> >>
> >> [dmd 0.96] outputs: C style cast deprecated, use cast(i)(j)
> >
> > Such parsing ambiguities are why C style casts are deprecated <g>. (It
is
> > parsed as (i)(+j), i.e. the + is seen as the unary plus operator.)
>
> Does this mean the we can never have the construct ...
>
>    '(' <identifier> ')' <operand> <expression>
>
> in D?

You will once I take out C style casts completely. But unlike C, you never need to enclose an identifier in redundant parens, so it isn't a problem. (It's needed in C because of macro arguments.)

In article <ce4bnm$1lla$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Jarrett Billingsley says...
>
>if the "unary plus" operator didn't exist, we wouldn't have this problem ;)

Well, actually, we'd still have the problem with unary minus.

This problem will go away in time, once C-style casts change from "deprecated" to "illegal". (But I'd still like to know what unary plus is for, given that we can't overload it to do anything useful).

Jill

In article <ce4r8j$1s0a$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...

>> if the "unary plus" operator didn't exist, we wouldn't have this problem
>;)
>>
>> what the hell is it for anyway?  jill wants to know too.
>
>For completeness. It should be overloadable, though.

Cool. What would you call it though? opDoNothing()? opTrivial()?

Jill :)

Walter wrote:

>>> "Ilya Zaitseff" <sark7@mail333.com> wrote in message
>>> news:opsbpwecsuaaezs2@ilya.tec.amursk.ru...
>>>
>>>> void main()
>>>> {
>>>>    int i, j;
>>>>    int k = (i)+j;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> [dmd 0.96] outputs: C style cast deprecated, use cast(i)(j)
<snip>
> You will once I take out C style casts completely. But unlike C, you never
> need to enclose an identifier in redundant parens, so it isn't a problem.
> (It's needed in C because of macro arguments.)

I personally don't see much difficulty in trying to parse it as an AddExpression first ... but yes, getting rid of C casts is the way to go.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

> Well, actually, we'd still have the problem with unary minus.

agh forgot about that one..