Re: initializing struct containing user defined type
On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 23:46:51 UTC, forkit wrote: On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 16:45:24 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: ... I think that syntax will be obviated when D will have named arguments. Ali Huh? D doesn't have named arguments, already? That's an important component for safe(r) programming. Do you know if there is a DIP for this, and if so, it's current status. The DIP is [accepted] but not implemented. [accepted]: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1030.md
Re: initializing struct containing user defined type
On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 16:45:24 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: ... I think that syntax will be obviated when D will have named arguments. Ali Huh? D doesn't have named arguments, already? That's an important component for safe(r) programming. Do you know if there is a DIP for this, and if so, it's current status.
Re: initializing struct containing user defined type
On 2/18/22 12:16, Salih Dincer wrote:
>// x.writeln(y); // 2.087
>"D Compiler v".writeln(__VERSION__/1000.0);
> ```
> I'm using v2.087 but because of @disable this line doesn't work: ```//
> x.writeln(y); // 2.087```
>
> Why? Can you give an explanation for this?
This is not related to struct initialization. The issue can be reduced
to the following:
struct S {
@disable this(this);
}
void foo(S s) {
}
void main() {
auto s = S();
foo(s);
}
Error: struct `deneme.S` is not copyable because it has a disabled postblit
foo takes by-value but S disables copying. The same thing happens with
your example inside a Phobos function:
void write(S...)(S args)
{
// ...
foreach (arg; args)
// ...
}
foreach iterates the arguments by-value there. Same issue.
Ali
Re: initializing struct containing user defined type
On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 16:45:24 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 2/18/22 07:01, kdevel wrote:
> Error: struct `B` has constructors, cannot use `{
initializers }`,
> use `B( initializers )` instead
>
> What is the rationale behind that? I mean: If the compiler
exactly
> sees what the program author intends to express why does it
force the
> author to change the code?
I don't know the answer to that. The {} initializers always
seemed out of place to me. I assumed they had to be supported
to copy+paste C code to D and it should mostly work.
One benefit of the {} initializer is being able use named
initializers:
struct S {
int a;
int b;
}
void main() {
S s = { b : 2, a : 1 };
}
I still think it's out of place. :)
I think that syntax will be obviated when D will have named
arguments.
Ali
```d
struct S {
float a, b;
@disable this(this);
}
enum par : float { a = 1, b = 2 }
S x = { b : par.b, a : par.a };
S y = S(par.a, par.b);
auto s1 = x.a / x.b;
auto s2 = y.a / y.b;
s1.writeln();
s2.writeln();
writeln(s1 + s2);
// x.writeln(y); // 2.087
"D Compiler v".writeln(__VERSION__/1000.0);
```
I'm using v2.087 but because of @disable this line doesn't work:
```// x.writeln(y); // 2.087```
Why? Can you give an explanation for this?
Re: initializing struct containing user defined type
On 2/18/22 07:01, kdevel wrote:
> Error: struct `B` has constructors, cannot use `{ initializers }`,
> use `B( initializers )` instead
>
> What is the rationale behind that? I mean: If the compiler exactly
> sees what the program author intends to express why does it force the
> author to change the code?
I don't know the answer to that. The {} initializers always seemed out
of place to me. I assumed they had to be supported to copy+paste C code
to D and it should mostly work.
One benefit of the {} initializer is being able use named initializers:
struct S {
int a;
int b;
}
void main() {
S s = { b : 2, a : 1 };
}
I still think it's out of place. :)
I think that syntax will be obviated when D will have named arguments.
Ali
Re: initializing struct containing user defined type
On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 14:37:25 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 2/18/22 06:19, kdevel wrote:
> // auto b3 = B ("A", "B"); // Error: cannot implicitly
convert
> // expression `"A"` of type `string` to `A`
Yeah, D disallows some implicit conversions.
Adding a constructor to B will make it work:
this(string as, string bs) {
this.a = A(as);
this.b = A(bs);
}
}
Okay. b0 needs an additional constructor with signature this (A,
A).
The initialization of b3 is now no longer working. dmd says:
Error: struct `B` has constructors, cannot use `{ initializers
}`,
use `B( initializers )` instead
What is the rationale behind that? I mean: If the compiler exactly
sees what the program author intends to express why does it force
the
author to change the code?
Re: initializing struct containing user defined type
On 2/18/22 06:19, kdevel wrote:
> // auto b3 = B ("A", "B"); // Error: cannot implicitly convert
> // expression `"A"` of type `string` to `A`
Yeah, D disallows some implicit conversions.
Adding a constructor to B will make it work:
this(string as, string bs) {
this.a = A(as);
this.b = A(bs);
}
}
Ali
initializing struct containing user defined type
Instead of using string I want to use A in the definition of B:
struct A {
string s;
this (string s)
{
this.s = s;
}
}
struct B {
A a;
A b;
}
Alas I have some difficulty initializing a B in the accustomed
manner (b3):
void main ()
{
auto b0 = B (A ("A"), A ("B")); // as expected but I don't
want
// to change the client code
// B b1 = { {"A"}, {"B"} }; // works if A has no (explicit)
ctor
// but I don't want to write the
braces
B b2 = {"A", "B"}; // works but why?
// auto b3 = B ("A", "B"); // Error: cannot implicitly
convert
// expression `"A"` of type `string` to `A`
}
Hasn't this been treated here before?
