https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #40 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com ---
Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/33d25844140a0b7785a480cf77f603b40154e7ff
[Refactoring] Remove
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
/edd0f6fbeeff70eccd7d2e15429b20418360eca5
fix Issue 1528 - [tdpl] overloading template and non-template functions
- Improve `resolveFuncCall` for integrated function call resolution.
All of error reporting is done in here.
- Remove `overloadResolve` and `deduceFuncitonTemplate`
The works was in `overloadResolve` are moved
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #33 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com 2013-04-07
07:33:07 PDT ---
Great thread. Sorry I'm late to it! Let me make an appeal to simplicity - even
if we come up with a very meaningful and consistent set of overloading rules,
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #34 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2013-04-07 18:44:04 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #33)
[snip]
That's the rule described in TDPL. I can completely agree with you.
I believe that my patch implements it enough.
I'd like
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #35 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com 2013-04-07
19:13:35 PDT ---
@Kenji: My bad, I forgot T:int means exact match, thought it's match with
conversion. (BTW that's a mistake: The syntax in classes suggests that class
T:U
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||pull
--- Comment #36
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #30 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2013-03-15 07:27:23 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #29)
(In reply to comment #28)
(In reply to comment #26)
It's not about the polysemous literals.
What's irritating me is that a
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #31 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-03-15 15:52:59 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #30)
...
Parameter deduction is less specialized than matching to explicitly
specialized type parameter.
...
It's not less specialized than a normal
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #32 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2013-03-15 16:51:36 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #31)
(In reply to comment #30)
...
Parameter deduction is less specialized than matching to explicitly
specialized type parameter.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #24 from Martin Nowak c...@dawg.eu 2013-03-14 08:46:43 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #23)
I think this rule is problematic for the function vs. deduced parameter case.
// vs deduced parameter
int f3(int a) { return 1; }
int f3(T)(T
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #25 from Martin Nowak c...@dawg.eu 2013-03-14 08:52:21 PDT ---
I find the C++ rule pretty plausible.
In most cases a function template behaves just like a normal function when
considering overload resolution. The template
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #26 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2013-03-14 09:01:49 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #24)
(In reply to comment #23)
I think this rule is problematic for the function vs. deduced parameter case.
// vs deduced parameter
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #27 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-03-14 15:34:50 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #25)
I find the C++ rule pretty plausible.
In most cases a function template behaves just like a normal function when
considering overload
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #28 from Martin Nowak c...@dawg.eu 2013-03-14 15:55:08 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #26)
It's not about the polysemous literals.
What's irritating me is that a function call with conversion
is preferred over a function template
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Martin Nowak c...@dawg.eu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@dawg.eu
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #18 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-03-01 03:15:40 PST ---
(In reply to comment #17)
template type parameter deduction without specialization always be
MATCHconvert
AFAIK this is a kludgy implementation detail
It is a bug.
to
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #19 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2013-03-01 03:26:51 PST
---
(In reply to comment #17)
template type parameter deduction without specialization always be
MATCHconvert
AFAIK this is a kludgy implementation detail to
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #20 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-03-01 03:40:36 PST ---
(In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #17)
...
In IFTI, the match level for template arguments and for function arguments are
distinguished. The former is prior
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #21 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2013-03-01 03:55:37 PST
---
(In reply to comment #20)
(In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #17)
...
In IFTI, the match level for template arguments and for function
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #22 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-03-01 11:48:00 PST ---
(In reply to comment #21)
(In reply to comment #20)
(In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #17)
...
In IFTI, the match level for template arguments and
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #23 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2013-03-01 18:17:08 PST
---
(In reply to comment #22)
Ah, now I see what you mean. You are matching foo!tiargs(funargs).
I was talking about resolving template vs. non-template overloads
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #16 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2013-02-28 20:46:30 PST
---
(In reply to comment #13)
// vs specialized parameter
int f4(int a) { return 1; }
int f4(T:int)(T b) { return 2; }
static assert(f4(1)==1);
Just only
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
monarchdo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||monarchdo...@gmail.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #15 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-02-27 06:29:43 PST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
...
static assert(f6(1L) == 1);
static assert(f6(ulong.max) == 2); // (a) ???
No match.
ulong ul = runtime();
static assert(f6(ul) == 2);
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
timon.g...@gmx.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timon.g...@gmx.ch
--- Comment #13
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|pull|
--- Comment #10 from
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #11 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2013-02-24
21:54:47 PST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
f3(1); // 1
f3(1L); // 2
f4(1); // ambiguous
f4(1L); // ambiguous
f5(1); // 1
f5(1L); // 1
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #12 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2013-02-24 22:30:26 PST
---
(In reply to comment #11)
The more specialized overload always wins.
The constraint is not considered when evaluating which is more specialized.
(Because in
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||pull
--- Comment #9
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Simen Kjaeraas simen.kja...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #8 from Simen Kjaeraas simen.kja...@gmail.com 2012-08-25 12:19:25
PDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
This bug causes problems with @disabled default constructors.
From what I can tell, @disable this() doesn't work _at all_: bug#
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #4 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2011-12-24
09:15:52 PST ---
Thanks for consolidating!
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because:
38 matches
Mail list logo
