On Saturday 13 September 2014 at 19:29:54 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/13/14, 1:02 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
It was just poorly implemented and only for templates. I don't
see how
having a different name would help us reach the same effect.
auto ref + static checking + minimal dynamic checking = win
Andrei
When I working on a library AA implementation (druntime#934), I
have faced a problem:
I defined special function-factory, which creats AA instance.
auto aaLiteral(Key, Value, T...)(auto ref args)
{
return AssociativeArray!(Key, Value)(args);
}
struct AssociativeArray(Key, Value)
{
this(T...)(auto ref T args)
{
...
key = args[0];//schematically, IRL key stored into
special Entry structure, which stored into hash-table
}
Key key;
}
Now we define struct with postblit, and pass it into aaLiteral.
struct Foo
{
this(int)
{
writeln("C");
}
this(this)
{
writeln("P");
}
~this()
{
writeln("D");
}
}
auto aa = aaLiteral!(Foo, int)(Foo(1), 2);
This expression expands to the next call chain:
aaLiteral | create Foo, prints C, Foo
passed by-value
AssociativeArray.this() | pass Foo by ref, because aaLiteral
parameter is a l-value
key = args[0]; | call postblit, because
compiler lost information about what args[0] was a r-value
When human see this code, he see, that we can avoid one postblit
and one destructor call and store passed Foo instance directly
into "key" field.
Have you any idea, how we can resolve this trouble and pass
constructed instance without excess postblit calls without/with
language changes.
