On Friday, 20 October 2017 at 23:01:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 10/20/17 6:23 PM, Patrick wrote:
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.
Not asking the compiler to fix my errors.
When would
is(this, myClass) not mean: is(typeof(this) : typeof(myClass))?
class C
{
}
int c;
C myC;
is(myC : c);
oops, forgot to capitalize. But compiler says "I know, you
really meant is(typeof(myC) : typeof(c)) -> false.
-Steve
If I explicitly wrote: is(typeof(myC) : typeof(c)) the outcome
would still be false and it would still require debugging. So
your example demonstrates nothing other then a type-o was made.
Try again...
In this unique case, the compiler should identify the class and
primitive types are incompatible and should issue an error
instead (and not return false).
Patrick
