On Thu, 15 May 2014 13:08:56 -0400, monarch_dodra <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 12:16:52 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 02:05:08 -0400, monarch_dodra
<[email protected]> wrote:
"move" will also delegate to "proxyMove".
This is the correct solution IMO. The principle of least surprise
should dictate that a.foo should always mean the same thing. All that
is required to enforce this is to make the "hook" function have a
different name.
The issue(s) I have with the "hook must have a different name" is:
1. In the algorithm implementation, you must explicitly test for the
hook, which, if we want to expand on, would turn all our algorithms into:
void foo(T)(T t)
{
static if (is(typeof(t.fooHook())))
return t.fooHook();
else
...
}
2. The "overriden" hook is only useful if you import the corresponding
algorithm. So for example, in my 3rd pary library, if my type has
"findHook", I'd *have* to import std.algorithm.find for it to be useful.
Unless I want to make a direct call to "findHook", which would be ugly...
Obviously, foo is not a good example for hooking. This problem only exists
if the functionality of the module-level function exceeds that of the
member. The above does not have any overloads, and basically does one
thing.
I did consider the fact that you would have to import the module-level
function in order for it to be part of the API, but that's how the system
works. It would be nice to say "if you import module x, then a.foo has
more functionality, if you don't, it's limited to this one aspect," but I
don't think that's possible. It's not a perfect solution, but the only one
that makes sense to me.
-Steve
