On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:15:31 -0400, so <[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, 27 April 2012 at 12:35:53 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Huh? The main reason of confusion is that the static method is named
in such a way that it looks like an instance method. So we prevent
that, unless the author of the class (who is deciding the name of the
function) deems it should be called on instances
example:
struct File
{
static File open(string name) {...} // factory method
this(string name);
}
File f = File("hello");
f.open("world"); // oops! Just opened file world and threw it away
f = File.open("world");// better!
With your proposal you can still do "f.open("world");" and get the same
result if the author provided alias.
The point is, don't provide the alias. Why would anyone do that in this
case?
You are trying to solve another problem, that the author should better
state if this is intended. The problem i see is user assumming author is
a smart guy. But at the end he finds out the author is as dumb as
himself {he should have RTFM :)}
There is no protection D could ever provide against dumb authors ;) He
could have named it "close", or "r72" and the compiler is powerless to
prevent this! It's useless to try and prevent such things, D compiler is
not a psychologist.
The problem I see here is that *smart* authors are inhibited from writing
smart code.
I challenge you to name File.open some way where it *wouldn't* be
confusing when called on an instance :)
-Steve
Easy! Don't call on an instance! openFile() out of the struct.
I always add "make_" before any static function, otherwise static
methods should be precise as
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
I like having open inside the struct, just a matter of preference. I
think File.open implies better than it returns a File more than openFile.
-Steve
