On 9/20/14, 9:07 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 09/20/2014 06:52 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/19/14, 8:14 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
....
To substantiate: It does the wrong thing (same typedef for same base
type) by default and doing the right thing (emulating nominal typing)
may require quite some effort in general (e.g. concatenate the mangled
names of all enclosing template instantiations) while remaining
non-modular (those cookie strings are global identifiers).
This is wrong
Well, how?
but probably not worth fighting.
"Then don't bring it up." :o)
Fair enough. It's just that... the tanks are coming and I'm to worry
about the bayonet needing some grease instead of setting up the shaped
charges. It's misplaced focus.
Human-readable cookies are exactly the solution: distinct human-readable
moniker that distinguish the types.
alias A = Typedef!(float, "dollar");
alias B = Typedef!(float, "euro");
...
This doesn't compile. This, IMHO more _ugly_, code compiles:
import std.typecons;
alias A = Typedef!(float, float.init, "dollar");
alias B = Typedef!(float, float.init, "euro");
Uhm, apparently I haven't tried the code :o). (Well prolly I'd want to
use 0.0 as initializer there, too.)
// (different issue:
void main(){
A dollars=2;
B euros=2*dollars;
}//)
Ew, that looks like a bug. How does that conversion go through? Could
you please file an issue?
They will be distinct to the human and compiler alone.
...
Library A:
alias A = Typedef!(int, -1, "handle");
Library B:
alias B = Typedef!(int, -1, "handle");
// ---
Yup, yup, say no more. I get your point. Clearly there's some due
diligence necessary here, i.e. prefix the name with the module name etc.
This was my argument. IMO this state of affairs is ugly. Disagree that
this makes the cookie parameter an 'ugly wart', but don't call the
argument factually wrong without substantiation, please.
OK, fair enough. Thanks.
Andrei
