On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:15:32 -0400, John Colvin
<[email protected]> wrote:
struct S {
auto opDispatch(string s)(A i){}
}
struct A {}
void main() {
S s;
A a;
s + a; //Error: incompatible types for ((s) + (a)): 'S' and 'A'
}
It would be really nice if opDispatch could catch missing operator
overloads.
Not sure this can work. opDispatch takes a string identifying the
function name, but opBinary is a template that ALSO needs a string.
I suppose the string parameter to opDispatch could be the explicit
instantiation:
s.opDispatch!"opBinary!\"+\""(a)
but that would seem extremely difficult to handle, you'd kind of need a
parser to deal with it.
what is the problem with just defining opBinary to catch missing operator
overloads?
Also, would it be a good idea to have free functions of all the
operators (opOpAssign etc...) for builtin types somewhere? It's
occasionally useful in generic wrappers.
The name of operator overloads are the actual operators. The opOpAssign,
etc, are hooks. Use the actual operators in generic code. A use case to
discuss may be more helpful.
-Steve
