On 10/10/14 10:09 AM, IgorStepanov wrote:
I've created DIP for my pull request.
DIP: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP66
PR: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3998
Please, comment it.
Here's my destruction:
* "symbol can be a field or a get-property (method annotated with
@property and taking zero parameters)." -> actually:
(a) the @property annotation is not necessary
(b) there may be one ore more parameters so long as they're all defaulted
So the text should be "obj.symbol must be a valid expression".
* "At the AliasThis declaration semantic stage, the compiler can perform
the initial checks and reject the obviously incorrect AliasThis
declarations." -> it might be simpler (for the sake of simplifying
generic code) to just delay all error checking to the first use.
* I don't think the pseudocode helps a lot. Better let's have a clear
and precise specification (I've edited the lookup order into an ordered
list).
* Regarding the lookup, opDispatch shouldn't come before alias this, or
should come before base class lookup. Essentially alias this is
subtyping so it should enjoy similar privileges to base classes. A
different way to look at it is opDispatch is a "last resort" lookup
mechanism, just one step above the UFCS lowering.
* The DIP should specify the working of alias this as
rewrites/lowerings, not pseudocode. Basically for each kth declaration
"alias symbolk this;" the compiler rewrites "obj.xyz" as
"obj.symbolk.xyz" and then does the usual lookup on that expression.
That means the whole algorithms is applied again etc. If more than one
rewrite typechecks, that's an ambiguity error.
* IMPORTANT: The DIP must discuss rvalue vs. lvalue cases. The rewrite
approach simplifies that discussion because it's clear what happens by
simply reasoning about the rewritten expression. Lvalue vs. rvalue
matters a lot practically. Consider:
struct A
{
private int x;
alias x this;
}
struct B
{
private int _x;
int x() { return x; }
alias x this;
}
Then x can be passed by reference, modified directly etc. for A but not
for B.
===========
Congratulations on taking this to a DIP. It clarifies things really nice
and it's an example to follow for future language changes.
Andrei
