On Monday, September 09, 2013 15:51:11 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > On 09/09/13 15:12, Daniel Murphy wrote: > > "Jacob Carlborg" <d...@me.com> wrote in message > > news:l0jrm7$3199$1...@digitalmars.com... > > > >> So what's wrong with this approach, that's already working today: > >> > >> class Foo > >> { > >> > >> void foo (); > >> > >> void foo () > >> { > >> > >> } > >> > >> } > >> > >> void main () > >> { > >> > >> auto foo = new Foo; > >> foo.foo(); > >> > >> } > >> > >> BTW, this feature was implemented because you asked for it. > >> > >> -- > >> /Jacob Carlborg > > > > Whoa, I didn't think of applying that to member functions. This seems > > like > > the answer. Put your variables and function prototypes at the top of your > > class. Done. > > Problem -- what about: > > class Foo > { > // Declarations > void foo(); > int bar(double n); > > // Definitions > void foo() { .... } > int bar(double n) { ....} > > // Whoops! Forgot to include this one in the > // declarations list, but it's still accepted > // as part of the class > void goo() { ... } > } > > A well-defined rule for separating out declarations and definitions would > check for that and throw a compile error.
Walter's proposal would be no different on that count. All that the DIP is proposing is a way to define a member function outside of a class. That requires that it already be declared in the class, but it doesn't make it so that you can't define other functions directly in the class. - Jonathan M Davis
