2012年4月19日20:48 Jens Mueller <[email protected]>: > Timon Gehr wrote: >> On 04/19/2012 11:28 AM, Jens Mueller wrote: >> >Hi, >> > >> >using UFCS with alias this behaves strange. >> >Consider >> > >> >struct Foo >> >{ >> > int _member; >> > alias _member this; >> >} >> > >> >int foo(Foo f) { return f._member; } >> >int foo(int i) { return i; } >> > >> >unittest >> >{ >> > Foo f; >> > f.foo(); // which function will be called? Isn't it ambiguous? >> >} >> > >> >Due to the alias this the function foo(int i) will be called. Is this >> >the indented behavior? Practically, I want UFCS to just perform a >> >syntactic rewrite from f.foo() to foo(f). >> >When using alias this you have to define the second function. Providing >> >only the first one results in a compile error. If you remove the alias >> >this things work as expected (first one needs to be defined). >> > >> >I stumbled upon this problem when trying to define additional functions >> >for a Tuple. Tuple has "alias field this" for falling back on >> >TypeTuple's opIndex. Unfortunately, >> > >> >alias Tuple!(int) Bar; >> >int bar(typeof(Bar.field) b) { return 1; } >> > >> >unittest >> >{ >> > Bar b; >> > b.bar(); >> >} >> > >> >does not work. >> > >> >Jens >> >> This is a bug. You can report it to: >> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/ > > It's submitted. > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7943 > Thanks for your reply. > > Jens
Posted compiler fix: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/890 Thanks for your reporting, Jens! Kenji Hara
