http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2347

           Summary: opIs is missing
           Product: D
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: andrei@metalanguage.com


The "is" operator is defined for built-in references and for slices. However, user-defined smart references and slices want to define it as well to integrate properly with built-in slices.

The definition of opIs should follow that of opIn.


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2347


smjg@iname.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |smjg@iname.com




------- Comment #1 from smjg@iname.com  2008-09-09 16:56 -------
I think that having opIs is philosophically wrong.  The whole point of is is to override any type-defined equality operator by forcing a byte-for-byte comparison.  There are probably plenty of template libraries and the like that rely on this.

What are these "user-defined smart references", anyway?


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2347





------- Comment #2 from 2korden@gmail.com  2008-09-10 04:25 -------
An example of "user-defined smart references" would be a ScopePtr!(T) that destroys an object when it goes out of the scope. Some reference-counted smart pointer also behaves just like an ordinary point and one would like to be able to compare SmartPtr against null using "is null" syntax:

auto ptr = SmartPtr!(MyClass)(new MyClass());
assert(ptr !is null);


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2347





------- Comment #3 from smjg@iname.com  2008-09-10 05:23 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> auto ptr = SmartPtr!(MyClass)(new MyClass());
> assert(ptr !is null);

Hang on ... is this a smart _pointer_ or a smart _reference_?

If a pointer, it makes no sense to use is to compare them as pointing to the same object.  And even if it's a reference, what practical use is there in being able to use is for this?  ISTM it would break more generic programming cases than it would open up.


--