What is the pretty way to do something like this?

Class C
{
  private const char[] _name = "C";// demangling this.mangleof didn't work

  void makeNew()
  {
    mixin(`new `~_name~`();`); // the not so pretty part
  }
}

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:59:37 -0400, strtr <strtr@sp.am> wrote:

> What is the pretty way to do something like this?
>
> Class C
> {
>   void makeNew()
>   {
>     new typeof(this);
>   }
> }

As edited...

-Steve

== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy@yahoo.com)'s article
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:59:37 -0400, strtr <strtr@sp.am> wrote:
> > What is the pretty way to do something like this?
> >
> > Class C
> > {
> >   void makeNew()
> >   {
> >     new typeof(this);
> >   }
> > }
> As edited...
> -Steve

Whahaha!
Thanks, I knew I was missing something here.

Dnia 30-06-2010 o 00:13:28 strtr <strtr@sp.am> napisał(a):

> == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy@yahoo.com)'s article
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:59:37 -0400, strtr <strtr@sp.am> wrote:
>> > What is the pretty way to do something like this?
>> >
>> > Class C
>> > {
>> >   void makeNew()
>> >   {
>> >     new typeof(this);
>> >   }
>> > }
>> As edited...
>> -Steve
>
> Whahaha!
> Thanks, I knew I was missing something here.

Interestingly, this works even if makeNew is static (as factory methods usually are). Don't know whether by design or by bug. If by the latter, please don't fix it ;)


Tomek

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:59:50 +0200, Tomek Sowinski <just@ask.me> wrote:
> 
> Dnia 30-06-2010 o 00:13:28 strtr <strtr@sp.am> napisal(a):
> 
> > == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schveiguy@yahoo.com)'s article
> >> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:59:37 -0400, strtr <strtr@sp.am> wrote:
> >> > What is the pretty way to do something like this?
> >> >
> >> > Class C
> >> > {
> >> >   void makeNew()
> >> >   {
> >> >     new typeof(this);
> >> >   }
> >> > }
> >> As edited...
> >> -Steve
> >
> > Whahaha!
> > Thanks, I knew I was missing something here.
> 
> Interestingly, this works even if makeNew is static (as factory methods usually are). Don't know whether by design or by bug. If by the latter, please don't fix it ;)
> 
> 
> Tomek

Yep, it's intentional. It's explained in a rather hard-to-find spot:

"There are three special cases:

 1. typeof(this) will generate the type of what this would be in a non-
static member function, even if not in a member function.
 2. Analogously, typeof(super) will generate the type of what super
would be in a non-static member function.
 3. typeof(return) will, when inside a function scope, give the return
type of that function."

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/declaration.html#Typeof