http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1012

           Summary: type templates don't support default arguments
           Product: D
           Version: 1.007
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: thomas-dloop@kuehne.cn


# class Bar(T = int){
# }
#
# void foo(T = int)(){
# }
#
# void main(){
#    foo(); // success
#    auto b = new Bar(); // fails
# }

test.d(9): class test.Bar(T = int) is used as a type
test.d(9): Error: new can only create structs, dynamic arrays or class objects,
not void's


-- 

d-bugmail@puremagic.com wrote:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1012
> 
>            Summary: type templates don't support default arguments
>            Product: D
>            Version: 1.007
>           Platform: PC
>         OS/Version: All
>             Status: NEW
>           Severity: normal
>           Priority: P3
>          Component: DMD
>         AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com
>         ReportedBy: thomas-dloop@kuehne.cn
> 
> 
> # class Bar(T = int){
> # }
> # # void foo(T = int)(){
> # }
> # # void main(){
> #    foo(); // success
> #    auto b = new Bar(); // fails
> # }
> 
> test.d(9): class test.Bar(T = int) is used as a type
> test.d(9): Error: new can only create structs, dynamic arrays or class objects, not void's
> 
> 
Are you allowed to leave out the !() in class template instantations?

I'd expect to have to write
  auto b = new Bar!()();
or at least
  auto b = new Bar!();

Don Clugston wrote:
>
> Are you allowed to leave out the !() in class template instantations?

No, but I think you perhaps should be allowed.  I posted as much here asking for comments, but the thread got no replies:

http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=48672

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1012


Stewart Gordon <smjg@iname.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement




--- Comment #3 from Stewart Gordon <smjg@iname.com>  2009-06-29 02:04:23 PDT ---
AIUI this isn't supposed to work.  If we allowed such implicit template instantiation everywhere, it would create ambiguities (alias declarations come to mind).  That's why, at the moment, it's explicitly allowed in some contexts where it's unambiguous, such as IFTI and (to some degree) mixins.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1012



--- Comment #4 from Rainer Schuetze <r.sagitario@gmx.de> 2009-09-30 14:48:47 PDT ---
Created an attachment (id=466)
convert TypeIdentifer refering to TemplateDeclaration to TypeInstance

I don't expect any additional ambiguities, because the template types are in
the same namespace as all other identifers anyway (apart from version and debug
identifiers).
This patch against 2.032 converts a TypeIdentifier (as created by the parser)
into a TypeInstance if name lookup revealed that it is actually a template.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1012


Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |leo.dahlmann@gmail.com


--- Comment #5 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> 2012-09-26 00:51:01 PDT ---
*** Issue 1328 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1012


Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |pull


--- Comment #6 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> 2012-11-16 01:22:06 PST ---
D2 pull: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1295

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1012


Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bugzilla@digitalmars.com


--- Comment #7 from Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com> 2012-11-16 10:39:26 PST ---
I have severe misgivings about this.

C has had problems with implicitly taking the address of a function. D has had a number of problems with implicitly calling a function (the @property thing).

It's just ambiguous in many cases, and leads to trouble, trouble, trouble.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1012


Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jmdavisProg@gmx.com


--- Comment #8 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> 2012-11-16 10:58:46 PST ---
> I have severe misgivings about this.

I concur. It seems like it just begging for trouble when providing minimal gain. Not to mention that it would harm code readability in many cases, which will therefore harm code maintainability.

issue# 6082 might be reasonable to implement (I don't know), in which case the example here would compile, but that would be restricted specifically to constructors. Making it so that templates in general can be instantiated without !() if they don't need any arguments is a bad idea IHMO. And I think that this post on the newsgroup is a good example of why this is a bad idea:

http://forum.dlang.org/post/vmipipnhyiilketbygbw@forum.dlang.org

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1012


Jakob Ovrum <jakobovrum@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakobovrum@gmail.com


--- Comment #9 from Jakob Ovrum <jakobovrum@gmail.com> 2012-11-16 11:14:54 PST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> issue# 6082 might be reasonable to implement (I don't know),

It's not possible in the general case.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13151072/

It might still be an attractive feature to have for specific, common cases, but it would either have to be defined as a "compiler's best effort" thing, which hurts portability, or defined to only work for a select few specific cases.

The latter is what's currently done for IFTI, but the rules are intuitive, especially thanks to eponymous templates.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------