On 2013-06-10 14:36, Manu wrote:
You supply 'this' at the time of calling. Read my OP.
Yes, exactly. It needs "this". It's the same thing as a delegate. It's just that with the delegate the context pointer and function pointer is combined. A function pointer (member or free) is useless if it's not called.
It's Don's work of art. It's also how I came to find out about D in the first place ;)
I see.
There's no way to specify to use the 'thiscall' calling convention. What I propose is a syntax that would describe a member function pointer, and imply the appropriate calling convention.
Right. I suggested a different syntax, but you want to reserve that syntax for something that match a library implementation, that's not even in the standard.
It's like saying I want int[] to match MyIntArray implemented in C++.
funcptr pretends to be typed, but the type is just wrong. In your example, the type is 'void function()', it should be 'void function(Foo this)'.
"void function()" is part of the complete type. It becomes complete with the context pointer.
So it's actually a lie. You can't call it. I'm not sure why it's typed at all... just a crash waiting to happen.
You can put a free function in a delegate and call it through the delegate. I guess you don't want that to be possible either.
So what I'm suggesting is a syntax to express a member function pointer, and then it could be properly typed.
I don't think there's anything wrong with supporting C++ member function pointers but I don't think we need to add new syntax for it.
-- /Jacob Carlborg
