On 05/15/2012 11:18 AM, Jens Mueller wrote:
Timon Gehr wrote:
On 05/15/2012 07:44 AM, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 05/14/2012 10:02 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 05/15/2012 04:28 AM, John Belmonte wrote:
C API's often use a opaque struct pointer as a handle. Mapping such a
struct to D using a forward declaration, I noticed that UFCS doesn't
work:
struct State;
...
State* s = new_state();
foo(s); // ok
s.foo(); // compile error
Error detail:
Error: struct State is forward referenced when looking for 'foo'
Error: struct State is forward referenced when looking for 'opDot'
Error: struct State is forward referenced when looking for 'opDispatch'
I'm wondering if anything would be harmed by removing this restriction.
As a workaround I can use "struct State {}", but that feels wrong.
This is a compiler bug. You can report it here:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/
I would expect the compiler to need to see the definition of S to know
that it really does not have a matching foo() member function.
Ali
S is opaque. It does not have any visible member functions.
How should the compiler infer that S is opaque? How does it know when
you write "struct State;" that State has no members? Is opaqueness
implied when I do a forward declaration?
Jens
This is a compile time error:
struct S;
struct S{}
