The code (much reduced from original):

# module test;
#
# struct Entry
# {
#     Entry* create()
#     {
#         Entry* theEntry = new Entry;
#	  return theEntry;
#     }
# }
#
# class Container
# {
#       void add()
#	{
#           Entry* add = Entry.create();
#           // ....
#       }
# }

Produces this error message (courtesy of dmd 0.126 on linux):

test.d(16): this for create needs to be type Entry not type test.Container

Can anybody decipher that message?  That's verbatum!  I'm not sure why it's not working either.  This compiled on previous versions.

-JJR

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 04:55:25 -0700, John Reimer <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote:
> # module test;
> #
> # struct Entry
> # {
> #     Entry* create()
> #     {
> #         Entry* theEntry = new Entry;
> #  return theEntry;
> #     }
> # }
> #
> # class Container
> # {
> #       void add()
> #{
> #           Entry* add = Entry.create();
> #           // ....
> #       }
> # }

Adding 'static' to create seems to fix it. eg. "static Entry* create()" etc.

Regan

> The code (much reduced from original):
>
> # module test;
> #
> # struct Entry
> # {

Insert a "static" here.

> #     Entry* create()
> #     {
> #         Entry* theEntry = new Entry;
> #	  return theEntry;
> #     }
> # }
> #
> # class Container
> # {
> #       void add()
> #	{
> #           Entry* add = Entry.create();
> #           // ....
> #       }
> # }

Ciao
uwe

Regan Heath wrote:
> 
> Adding 'static' to create seems to fix it. eg. "static Entry* create()"  etc.
> 
> Regan

Thanks.  I'm curious to know why this changes in the recent version.

-JJR

In article <d8a3e5$23gj$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
>
>Regan Heath wrote:
>> 
>> Adding 'static' to create seems to fix it. eg. "static Entry* create()" etc.
>
>Thanks.  I'm curious to know why this changes in the recent version.

The error message stinks, but you should not be able to call a nonstatic method on  a type unless it's through an instance of that type.  I'm surprised that code ever worked.


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> In article <d8a3e5$23gj$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
> 
>>Regan Heath wrote:
>>
>>>Adding 'static' to create seems to fix it. eg. "static Entry* create()"  etc.
>>
>>Thanks.  I'm curious to know why this changes in the recent version.
> 
> 
> The error message stinks, but you should not be able to call a nonstatic method
> on  a type unless it's through an instance of that type.  I'm surprised that
> code ever worked.
> 
> 
> Sean
> 
> 

Thanks. That makes sense.  I was wondering if structs had an implicit static attribute on there methods in past versions.  I haven't used structs much.  With classes, I can see the necessity of using static.

-JJR

"John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d8a3e5$23gj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Regan Heath wrote:
> >
> > Adding 'static' to create seems to fix it. eg. "static Entry* create()"
> > etc.
> >
> > Regan
>
> Thanks.  I'm curious to know why this changes in the recent version.

Because it now checks for that particular mistake. Before, it would pass the wrong 'this' pointer to Entry.create().

"John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d8a5pn$25s9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Thanks. That makes sense.  I was wondering if structs had an implicit static attribute on there methods in past versions.

No. You'd just get passed the wrong 'this'. If you accessed a member, a mess would happen.