http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4272

           Summary: x.typeof syntax
           Product: D
           Version: future
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: bearophile_hugs@eml.cc


--- Comment #0 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 2010-06-04 15:42:55 PDT ---
A syntax like x.typeof can be considered.

There are situations where you will need to parenthesize anyway, like:

import std.stdio;
void main() {
    int x = 1;
    float y = 1.5;
    writeln(typeid(typeof(x + y)));
}


You will have to write:
(x + y).typeof


But in many situations with this change you will be able to avoid the ().

This syntax is more similar/uniform to the x.sizeof syntax too (that is
sizeof(x) in C).

-- 
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=4272


Trass3r <mrmocool@gmx.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mrmocool@gmx.de


--- Comment #1 from Trass3r <mrmocool@gmx.de> 2010-06-13 17:49:40 PDT ---
Then typeid should probably also be .typeid instead of typeid()

-- 
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=4272


monarchdodra@gmail.com changed:

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


--- Comment #2 from monarchdodra@gmail.com 2012-09-14 11:17:24 PDT ---
*** Issue 8661 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=4272


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

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


--- Comment #3 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> 2012-09-14 14:20:26 PDT ---
typeof isn't a property or a function, unlike sizeof. It's like an is-expression, and I think that treating it like a property would be a mistake.

-- 
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=4272


Nick Treleaven <ntrel-public@yahoo.co.uk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ntrel-public@yahoo.co.uk


--- Comment #4 from Nick Treleaven <ntrel-public@yahoo.co.uk> 2012-10-06 06:22:10 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> typeof isn't a property or a function, unlike sizeof. It's like an is-expression, and I think that treating it like a property would be a mistake.

I think (x + y).typeof should not be allowed, use the existing syntax instead.

However, x.typeof is a useful shorthand that helps cut down on nested brackets in is expressions and elsewhere. So I would allow both typeof(expression) and identifier.typeof to be used, but *not* expression.typeof.

The type of an instance is a natural property of the instance IMO.

-- 
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=4272


Maxim Fomin <maxim@maxim-fomin.ru> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |maxim@maxim-fomin.ru


--- Comment #5 from Maxim Fomin <maxim@maxim-fomin.ru> 2012-10-06 06:41:10 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > typeof isn't a property or a function, unlike sizeof. It's like an is-expression, and I think that treating it like a property would be a mistake.
> 
> I think (x + y).typeof should not be allowed, use the existing syntax instead.
> 
> However, x.typeof is a useful shorthand that helps cut down on nested brackets in is expressions and elsewhere. So I would allow both typeof(expression) and identifier.typeof to be used, but *not* expression.typeof.
> 
> The type of an instance is a natural property of the instance IMO.

The problem is that UFCS was made to work with functions and typeof is not a function. Accepting identifier.typeof would result in questions about which identifiers are valid for this and what else works besides typeof with them.

-- 
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=4272



--- Comment #6 from Nick Treleaven <ntrel-public@yahoo.co.uk> 2012-10-06 10:28:49 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The problem is that UFCS was made to work with functions and typeof is not a function. Accepting identifier.typeof would result in questions about which identifiers are valid for this and what else works besides typeof with them.

This is not to do with UFCS. There are already many built in properties like
x.sizeof, x.init:
http://dlang.org/property.html

typeof fits nicely as a built in property, and helps cut down on nested brackets.

-- 
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=4272



--- Comment #7 from Maxim Fomin <maxim@maxim-fomin.ru> 2012-10-07 01:08:41 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > The problem is that UFCS was made to work with functions and typeof is not a function. Accepting identifier.typeof would result in questions about which identifiers are valid for this and what else works besides typeof with them.
> 
> This is not to do with UFCS. There are already many built in properties like
> x.sizeof, x.init:
> http://dlang.org/property.html
> 
> typeof fits nicely as a built in property, and helps cut down on nested brackets.

Typeof is not a property either. And it differs from all those properties which, given a type or expression, provide fundamental information about their types like size, default value, name, alignment. Typeof works in opposite direction - given some expression it gives its type.

BTW, identifier is a primary expression (http://dlang.org/expression.html), so,
making idenfier.typeof possible and expression.typeof not (as mentioned above),
raises some questions.

However, if typeof is made a property too, it would be logical and consistent.

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