On 2013-06-10 15:47, Manu wrote:

> I'm really not asking for delegates (although they could become more
> typesafe given my suggestion), just a member function pointer. And not
> C++ style as you say, my suggestion is much simpler than that, and would
> fit nicely in D.

I give up, I don't understand what you want.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 11 June 2013 00:43, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-06-10 15:47, Manu wrote:
>
>  I'm really not asking for delegates (although they could become more
>> typesafe given my suggestion), just a member function pointer. And not C++ style as you say, my suggestion is much simpler than that, and would fit nicely in D.
>>
>
> I give up, I don't understand what you want.


...a member function pointer syntax. It's not that complex.

My suggestion is: void function(T this) funcptr;
This is a function pointer (not a delegate), but using keyword 'this' gives
the critical detail to the compiler that it's a member function pointer,
and to use the appropriate calling convention when making calls through
this pointer.
UFCS makes it awesome.

On Monday, 10 June 2013 at 14:43:50 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-06-10 15:47, Manu wrote:
>
>> I'm really not asking for delegates (although they could become more
>> typesafe given my suggestion), just a member function pointer. And not
>> C++ style as you say, my suggestion is much simpler than that, and would
>> fit nicely in D.
>
> I give up, I don't understand what you want.

Let me try to summarize it in code:

---
class A { void foo(); }
auto memberFun = (&A.foo).funcptr;

auto a = new A;
memberFun(a);
---

David

On 2013-06-10 17:40, David Nadlinger wrote:

> Let me try to summarize it in code:
>
> ---
> class A { void foo(); }
> auto memberFun = (&A.foo).funcptr;
>
> auto a = new A;
> memberFun(a);
> ---

Why is this better than a delegate?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-06-10 17:36, Manu wrote:

> My suggestion is: void function(T this) funcptr;
> This is a function pointer (not a delegate), but using keyword 'this'
> gives the critical detail to the compiler that it's a member function
> pointer, and to use the appropriate calling convention when making calls
> through this pointer.
> UFCS makes it awesome.

What I don't understand is what this give you that a delegate doesn't. You need the "this" pointer to call the function pointer anyway. With a delegate it's bundled.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 11 June 2013 02:26, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-06-10 17:40, David Nadlinger wrote:
>
>  Let me try to summarize it in code:
>>
>> ---
>> class A { void foo(); }
>> auto memberFun = (&A.foo).funcptr;
>>
>> auto a = new A;
>> memberFun(a);
>> ---
>>
>
> Why is this better than a delegate?


It's not 'better', it's different.

Am 10.06.2013 18:28, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> On 2013-06-10 17:36, Manu wrote:
>
>> My suggestion is: void function(T this) funcptr;
>> This is a function pointer (not a delegate), but using keyword 'this'
>> gives the critical detail to the compiler that it's a member function
>> pointer, and to use the appropriate calling convention when making calls
>> through this pointer.
>> UFCS makes it awesome.
>
> What I don't understand is what this give you that a delegate doesn't.
> You need the "this" pointer to call the function pointer anyway. With a
> delegate it's bundled.
>

maybe he just don't need one to handle the this ptr because he wants to call several/hundrets of member-functions?

On 2013-06-10 18:34, Manu wrote:
> On 11 June 2013 02:26, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com <mailto:doob@me.com>>
> wrote:
>
>     On 2013-06-10 17:40, David Nadlinger wrote:
>
>         Let me try to summarize it in code:
>
>         ---
>         class A { void foo(); }
>         auto memberFun = (&A.foo).funcptr;
>
>         auto a = new A;
>         memberFun(a);
>         ---
>
>
>     Why is this better than a delegate?
>
>
> It's not 'better', it's different.

class A { void foo(); }
auto memberFun = (&A.foo).funcptr;

auto a = new A;
void delegate () dg;
dg.funcptr = memberFun;
dg.ptr = cast(void*) a;
dg();

The details can be hidden in a function call. Sure, a delegate could be type safe but still don't see the point.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 11 June 2013 02:28, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-06-10 17:36, Manu wrote:
>
>  My suggestion is: void function(T this) funcptr;
>> This is a function pointer (not a delegate), but using keyword 'this'
>> gives the critical detail to the compiler that it's a member function
>> pointer, and to use the appropriate calling convention when making calls
>> through this pointer.
>> UFCS makes it awesome.
>>
>
> What I don't understand is what this give you that a delegate doesn't. You need the "this" pointer to call the function pointer anyway. With a delegate it's bundled.


It's just a pointer, 'this' is associated at the call site. And it's
strongly typed.
If you don't want a bundle, why be forced to use a bundled type?

Consider this, why would you ever want an int* when you can have an int[]?
We could remove the syntax for int*, and make it only accessible via
int[].ptr... and make: is(typeof(int[].ptr) == size_t)? :)

On 2013-06-10 18:38, dennis luehring wrote:

> maybe he just don't need one to handle the this ptr because he wants to
> call several/hundrets of member-functions?

How does he call a pointer to a member function without the "this" pointer?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg