On 2014-01-17 21:25, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

Ahem. Wasn't it what I said? :)

I don't know, perhaps I missed that :)

Of course I did try. My concern is that
it would stop accepting arbitrary user types. Most times this would be a
good thing. But not always. Hence I'm hesitating :)

Right, but the opposite could be said as well. If it's not marked with @safe no other functions marked with @safe can call the function. But any non-safe function can call @safe functions.

Oh, I didn't say so, but of course once they're out of class, they're
bound to have proper names. I don't know if you've caught that comment
in the code, but I basically intentionally named them ugly to minimize
collisions.

I didn't think of that. Perhaps using two underscores instead then, since the compiler is has reserved those names no one else should use them. I think this is an edge case where this could be allowed.

Alternatively, as you wrote in a comment, use free functions. Since they would be declared in the same module they would have access to the private data. Hmm, but the compiler prefers opDispatch before UFCS.

Heh, now I'm even more leaning towards a proxy. Because honestly,
x.opDispatch!("release")() is even uglier than x.opDot().release() :D By
proxy I mean replacing opDot() with a mixin that would directly inject a
Unique with an interface of a wrapped object. That has some problems
(like how to forward calls to template functions), but hey, I'm
experimenting here!

Does opDot even work?

--
/Jacob Carlborg

Reply via email to