On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 13:26:21 UTC, SimonN wrote:
On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 12:03:32 UTC, aliak wrote:
Maybe this part can be fixed with:
struct NonNull(T) if (isPointer!T || is(T == class))
{
    @disable opAssign(V)(V v) {} // no no no
    void opAssign(V)(NonNull!V other) { // only this allowed.
Interesting approach -- I'll keep it on the backburner for testing. Converting a class-heavy codebase to this would be daunting, but I don't want to rule it out yet.


Heh yeah, it would be indeed!

Automatic subtype detection will fail, and, thus, e.g., covariant return types.

To make it clearer that this isn't a bug in Optional, but rather an artifact of D's subtype detection, I will give examples with std.typecons.Rebindable instead of with Optional. For a class A, Rebindable!(const(A)) is designed as a reference to const(A) that can be rebound to point to a different const(A). I believe Rebindable!A aliases itself away and thus Rebindable!A will not be discussed, only Rebindable!(const(A)).

    import std.typecons;
    class Base { }
    class Derived : Base { }
    static assert(is(const(Derived) : const(Base))); // OK
static assert(is(Rebindable!(const(Derived)) : Rebindable!(const(Base)))); // fails

Covariant return types will also fail. The following example doesn't compile, but would if we stripped all `rebindable' and all `Rebindable!':

    import std.typecons;
    class Base {
        Rebindable!(const(Base)) create()
        {
            return rebindable(new Base());
        }
    }
    class Derived : Base {
        override Rebindable!(const(Derived)) create()
        {
            return rebindable(new Derived());
        }
    }


Ah, thanks, that cleared things up!

Does this maybe boil down to if two templates should be covariant on their parameter types? Considering that static if allows you to do whatever you want inside based on static inference, in theory Rebindable!(const Derived) can be completely different than Rebindable(const Base). So are covariant return types even possible I wonder?

If D had implicit conversions then types can specifically say that they explicitly allow behavior like this where it made sense though.


Speculation: There may be problems once we try to wrap class references in two different structs. We might want Optional or NonNull, and then another wrapper (e.g., Rebindable) for some other benefit. When these wrappers are written with if-constraints to take only raw D class references, we may pick only one wrapper. But I haven't investigated this yet.

-- Simon

Aye, I guess Optional and NonNull would have to know about each other to make the most out of them together. I've actually been tempted to put in a NonOptional type inside the optional package. But maybe NonNull would make more sense since we may just want this behavior for reference types. and NonOptional!int is kinda ... well wtf is that :p

Cheers
- Ali


Reply via email to