On 2011-02-10 15:22:48 -0500, Don <nos...@nospam.com> said:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
This doesn't work. If you only define one, then you will have problems
with hidden function errors, and/or inconsistencies. For example, how
does .opEquals(Object obj1, Object obj2) know which version to call?
I think the only true solution is to make it const and call it a day.
-Steve
I fear that you're probably right. The const opEquals must exist,
otherwise the object will be unable to use most functions in Phobos.
And I don't see how it can safely be synthesised from non-const opEquals.
A tiny compromise which could be made, is to silently add 'const' to
any class opEquals declaration, even if not present in the source. That
way, simple use cases would still compile without complaint.
(As long as only a single, precisely defined opEquals signature is
permitted, I think any other signature should be flagged as an error --
but it could be converted to the correct signature, instead).
I don't like this idea at all. If the problem is that it's too easy to
hide the underlying function without noticing (no compile-time error),
then fix how the language treats hidden functions (make it a
compile-time error). If opEquals has this problem, other
non-language-defined functions will have it too, and fixing it with a
special case for opEquals will not fix it elsewhere. Not to speak of
the inconsistency it adds.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
