On Sunday, 11 February 2018 at 19:33:23 UTC, Alex wrote:
On Sunday, 11 February 2018 at 15:18:11 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
Basically, Typedef looks like this:
struct Typedef(T) {
T _payload;
// Forward method calls, member access, etc, to _payload.
}
If T looks like this:
struct T {
static int[3] arr;
void foo() { arr[0]++; }
}
How is Typedef supposed to wrap T.foo in such a way that it
uses a different arr depending on whether it's called from the
Typedef or from T?
--
Simen
In the same way as it is handled by this:
/// --- code --- ///
void main(){}
static assert(T.arr.ptr != S.arr.ptr);
struct T {
static int[3] arr;
void foo() { arr[0]++; }
}
struct S {
static int[3] arr;
void foo() { arr[0]++; }
}
/// --- code ends --- ///
I understand that Typedef should be kept simple. But if it
defines a type which is recognized as another type in respect
to the underlying one, then I should be able to rely on
independence of everything, like I would copy/paste the
implementation. Or do I misinterpret something?
I agree that'd be nice. Sadly, it's not a reasonable expectation.
:(
A more extreme example: You have a compiled library, and some .di
(header) files. In one of those files is this code:
struct S {
static int[] arr;
void foo();
}
Now how should Typedef go about making foo() do the right thing?
Even with compiler support, this is impossible - the source of
S.foo is simply not available, and it doesn't take the address of
the static data as a parameter anywhere.
--
Simen
