On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:18 AM Stephen R. van den Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Chris Angelico wrote:
> >In digging into a problem with Protocols.HTTP.Promise, I came across
>
> ># define PROMISE_DESTRUCTOR \
> > protected void _destruct() { \
> > werror("%O()._destruct()\n", object_program(this)); \
>
> Even though I rewrote that implementation, I didn't touch (nor use)
> this construct.
>
> >How can this be solved generically? The symbol ::_destruct simply
> >can't be looked up (at compile time) if the parent doesn't have one.
>
> I think the same problem exists for constructors.
> Pike lacks a generic solution for both problems so far (AFAIK).
With run-time lookups, you can check first:
if (obj->method) obj->method();
But this doesn't work with :: syntax because it's resolved at compile time.
I've never had this exact problem with constructors, but there's a
different oddity: if you inherit from two functions that both have
constructors, you need to explicitly pass the call on:
class X {
inherit Y;
inherit Z;
protected void create() {::create();}
}
Otherwise, only one of them will be called.
Changing the constructor situation would probably break a fair bit of
code out there, but maybe something can be done about destructors.
ChrisA
