Wow, you're right. You can implement a tuple of interfaces. When I
wrote the last email saying you couldn't it was late at night in my time
zone. I didn't bother double-checking because I had never seen such a
thing documented or done before. I got your requested feature of
implementing multiple output types working at the small cost of having
to use a string mixin to write the put methods, since static foreach
never made the cut. The latest revision is at
http://pastebin.com/azM0Xnqh .
On 8/21/2010 12:06 AM, Shin Fujishiro wrote:
David Simcha<[email protected]> wrote:
Hmm. It's worth considering, but I see at least two problems.
1. Do we have a practical use case for it? I don't generally believe
in adding complexity without clear use cases for said complexity.
I'm not sure. I/O-related ranges tend to have chunk-writing overloads:
void put(E value);
void put(E[] chunk);
And the Appender has a similar overload for bulk appending. But such
ranges can work with only one of those overloads.
2. The base interface is OutputRange!(E). If I change the base
interface to OutputRange!(E...), then OutputRange!(uint, double) won't
be a subtype of OutputRange!(uint). This is self-evidently ridiculous.
I could maybe make OutputRangeObject!(E...) inherit from
OutputRange!(E[0]), OutputRange!(E[1]), ..., OutputRange!(E[$ - 1]), but
other than nasty string mixins D doesn't provide a way to inherit from a
tuple of interfaces.
Oh, really? That's bad. I thought tuples could be used in the class
inheritance list. IIRC something like the following also does not work
due to a deep inheritance bug:
interface OutputRange(E...) : OutputRange!(E[1 .. $]) {
void put(E[0] e);
}
Then, maybe we should put off supporting this anyway...
On 8/20/2010 9:26 PM, Shin Fujishiro wrote:
David Simcha<[email protected]> wrote:
In addition to the changes I made last night, I've also made the
following changes:
1. Change name to inputRangeObject/InputRangeObject.
2. Add support for output ranges as outputRangeObject/OutputRangeObject.
3. Remove the now ridiculous looking Hungarian notation on the interfaces.
http://pastebin.com/U83YNJfJ is where it's at.
Any more comments from anyone, or does this look ready to be checked in?
Could you make OutputRangeObject able to accept multiple element types?
template outputRangeObject(E...) {
auto outputRangeObject(R)(R range) { ... }
}
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
