On Friday, 20 October 2017 at 22:15:36 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 10/20/17 5:55 PM, Patrick wrote:
Due to the very specific nature of the 'is' operator, why
wouldn't the compiler know to implicitly query the class
types? Why must it be explicitly written, typeof(this)?
The compiler generally doesn't "fix" errors for you, it tells
you there is a problem, and then you have to fix it. You have
to be clear and unambiguous to the compiler. Otherwise
debugging would be hell.
-Steve
Not asking the compiler to fix my errors.
When would
is(this, myClass) not mean: is(typeof(this) : typeof(myClass))?
Why would "is(this, myClass)" be ambiguous? What other
interpretation would "is(this, myClass)" imply?
Patrick
