On 8/3/18 10:26 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 July 2018 at 15:07:04 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 7/31/18 10:13 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
is there any particular reason why
void foo(string a) {}
void foo(immutable(char)* b) {}
void bar()
{
foo("baz");
}
result in
Error: foo called with argument types (string) matches both:
foo(string a)
and:
foo(immutable(char)* b)
especially given the pointer overload is almost always
void foo(immutable(char)* b)
{
foo(b[0 .. strlen(b)]);
}
and if I really want to call the pointer variant I can with
foo("baz".ptr);
but I can't call the string overload with a literal without creating
a temp.
I think we should make string literals prefer string arguments.
Absolutely, I didn't realize this was an ambiguity. It should be the
same as foo(long) vs. foo(int) with foo(1).
+1 for this
Although there is a solution for this today, i.e.
foo(cast(string)"baz");
foo("baz".ptr));
I see no reason why `string` shouldn't have precedence over
`immutable(char)*`, especially since you can always explicitly choose
the pointer variant with `.ptr.
Let me rewrite your solution for int vs. long:
foo(cast(int)1);
foo(1L);
You like that too? ;)
"baz" is a string, that's its primary type. That it can be used for a
const(char)* is nice for legacy C code, but shouldn't get in the way of
its natural type.
-Steve
