Re: Adding to a global AliasSeq

2023-08-18 Thread Basile B. via Digitalmars-d-learn

On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 12:20:54 UTC, repr_man wrote:

On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 07:02:45 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
You can add a kind of tag with the mixin, that will allow to 
to test if the type supplied to `f` is well a Base implementor:
Firstly, thank you for your help.  This is probably the best 
solution.


Secondly, I feel very stupid for not having come up with this 
by myself.  Would you be willing to explain some of the thought 
process behind your solution?  Are there any key factors that I 
should look for in future template-related problems?  Or, if it 
just comes from experience and seeing this sort of thing 
repeatedly, that's fair, too.


Thanks, once again!


This is just classic D.

The way this works is tied to overload-sets resolution. You have 
two functions templates, same name, same count of parameters. The 
only way to make both exist in the set is "template constraint", 
one works given certain static conditions, the other not. Also, 
as it's time for the explanations, one thing about that system 
and that you should keep in mind is that it's costly, i.e "can 
cause major slowdown of compilation".


Re: Adding to a global AliasSeq

2023-08-15 Thread repr_man via Digitalmars-d-learn

On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 07:02:45 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
You can add a kind of tag with the mixin, that will allow to to 
test if the type supplied to `f` is well a Base implementor:
Firstly, thank you for your help.  This is probably the best 
solution.


Secondly, I feel very stupid for not having come up with this by 
myself.  Would you be willing to explain some of the thought 
process behind your solution?  Are there any key factors that I 
should look for in future template-related problems?  Or, if it 
just comes from experience and seeing this sort of thing 
repeatedly, that's fair, too.


Thanks, once again!


Re: Adding to a global AliasSeq

2023-08-15 Thread Basile B. via Digitalmars-d-learn

On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 02:30:37 UTC, repr_man wrote:

Consider the following template mixin:
```d
mixin template Base()
{
int x(){ return 10; }
}
```
It could be used in a variety of structs as follows:
```d
struct Child
{
mixin Base!();
}
```
Now, let's suppose we write a function with a parameter that 
should only be able to take items that mix in `Base`:

```d
auto f(T)(T arg)
{
return arg.x;
}
```
This works because D uses structural subtyping.  However, this 
creates a problem: if we make another struct that looks like it 
mixes in `Base` and pass it to the function, we could get 
unexpected results:

```d
struct Other
{
int x = 5;
}

unittest
{
import std.stdio;

auto c = Child();
auto o = Other();

writeln(f(c));
writeln(f(o));
}
```
The output from running `dub test` is as follows:
```
10
5
```
[...]
Is there any template-fu of which I am not aware that would 
make the thing I am trying to do possible?


You can add a kind of tag with the mixin, that will allow to to 
test if the type supplied to `f` is well a Base implementor:


```d
mixin template Base()
{
enum LookImABase = true;
int x(){ return 10; }
}

struct Child
{
mixin Base!();
}

auto f(T)(T arg)
if (is(typeof(T.LookImABase)))
{
return arg.x;
}

struct Other
{
int x = 5;
}

void main(string[] args)
{
import std.stdio;

auto c = Child();
auto o = Other();

writeln(f(c)); // ok
writeln(f(o)); // error
}
```

This is what is called in D the "design by introspection". There 
are alternatives way of doing that, notably with UDAs.



```d
mixin template Base()
{
enum Base;
@Base int x(){ return 10; }
}
```

But the introspection code is more complex (std.traits getUDA, 
hasUDA)


Finally a different approach, with no introspection, is to use a 
named mixin:


```d
mixin template Base()
{
enum Base;
int x(){ return 10; }
}

struct Child
{
mixin Base!() base;
}

auto f(T)(T arg)
{
return arg.base.x;
}

struct Other
{
int x = 5;
}

void main(string[] args)
{
import std.stdio;

auto c = Child();
auto o = Other();

writeln(f(c));
writeln(f(o)); // error
}
```

which works but has the same problem as what lead you to ask your 
question, for example if it turns out that the supplied argument 
has unfortunately a `base` member that itself has a `x` member.


Adding to a global AliasSeq

2023-08-14 Thread repr_man via Digitalmars-d-learn

Consider the following template mixin:
```d
mixin template Base()
{
int x(){ return 10; }
}
```
It could be used in a variety of structs as follows:
```d
struct Child
{
mixin Base!();
}
```
Now, let's suppose we write a function with a parameter that 
should only be able to take items that mix in `Base`:

```d
auto f(T)(T arg)
{
return arg.x;
}
```
This works because D uses structural subtyping.  However, this 
creates a problem: if we make another struct that looks like it 
mixes in `Base` and pass it to the function, we could get 
unexpected results:

```d
struct Other
{
int x = 5;
}

unittest
{
import std.stdio;

auto c = Child();
auto o = Other();

writeln(f(c));
writeln(f(o));
}
```
The output from running `dub test` is as follows:
```
10
5
```
Even worse, because of UFCS, if there happens to be a function 
with the name `x` in scope, it could get called:

```d
auto x(int arg)
{
import std.stdio;

writeln("Hello world");
return arg;
}

unittest
{
import std.stdio;

auto c = Child();
auto o = Other();
auto i = 7;

writeln(f(c));
writeln(f(o));
writeln(f(i));
}
```
The output from running `dub test` is the following:
```
10
5
Hello world
7
```
Obviously, this case is fairly trivial; however, I could see it 
becoming more of a problem in large projects, where an import 
could pull something into the namespace and there would be no 
compiler error about the function (in this case, `f`) being used 
incorrectly.


The problem could be partially solved by enforcing that no one 
uses UFCS (through using regular call syntax and fully qualifying 
all functions), but this is ultimately not a sustainable 
solution, as it involves all contributing parties knowing about 
and using this convention.  And, if anyone makes a mistake, it 
would be difficult to find.


A better solution would be to make some sort of list of structs 
that mix in `Base`:

```d
alias BaseUsers = AliasSeq!(Child);
```
Then, `f` could have a constraint added:
```d
auto f(T)(T arg)
  if(staticIndexOf!(T, BaseUsers) != -1)
{
return arg.x;
}
```
Now, `dub test` fails properly:
```
Error: template `f` is not callable using argument types 
`!()(Other)`

   Candidate is: `f(T)(T arg)`
  with `T = Other`
  must satisfy the following constraint:
`   staticIndexOf!(T, BaseUsers) != -1`
Error: template `f` is not callable using argument types 
`!()(int)`

   Candidate is: `f(T)(T arg)`
  with `T = int`
  must satisfy the following constraint:
`   staticIndexOf!(T, BaseUsers) != -1`
```
The problem with this, of course, is that every user of `Base` 
must be known ahead of time and added to the list.  Apart from 
being error-prone, it also prevents this approach from being used 
in a library.


In "Fantasy D", I would want to do something like this in the 
template mixin:

```d
mixin template Base()
{
BaseUsers ~= typeof(this);

int x(){ return 10; }
}
```
However, since `AliasSeq`s are immutable, and since there is no 
way that I know of to override a fully qualified alias, this does 
not work.


Is there any template-fu of which I am not aware that would make 
the thing I am trying to do possible?