[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

Iain Buclaw  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|P2  |P4

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

Basile-z  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|b2.t...@gmx.com |

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

Basile-z  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||b2.t...@gmx.com

--- Comment #13 from Basile-z  ---
*** Issue 17465 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

hst...@quickfur.ath.cx changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hst...@quickfur.ath.cx

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

Nick Treleaven  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dav...@126.com

--- Comment #12 from Nick Treleaven  ---
*** Issue 1412 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

Nick Treleaven  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||n...@geany.org

--- Comment #11 from Nick Treleaven  ---
struct S {
string stringof;
}

// Issue 14237
class MyClass
{
void init() {};
}

`init` and `stringof` should be required to be `static`, as they are expected
to work without an instance. They should probably not be allowed to be `void`
functions either.

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

Nick Treleaven  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||heartcollector...@gmail.com

--- Comment #10 from Nick Treleaven  ---
*** Issue 14237 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

Vijay Nayar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mad...@gmail.com

--- Comment #9 from Vijay Nayar  ---
I encountered this problem as well while porting a C++ library to D.  It took a
while to diagnose, but I eventually found out that the mere existence of a
function named "init" caused the RefAppender I used in a totally unrelated
function to break.

Example program:
```
import std.array;

struct S1 {
  // The mere presence of this method causes the error, deleting it fixes the
error.
  void init(string p1, int p2, int p3) { }
}

struct S2 {
  S1[] a;
  RefAppender!(int[]) getAppender() {
return appender();
  }
}

void main() { }
```

The actual error produced is obvious only because the arguments I put on init
in this example, but normally it's pretty bizarre:
```
/dlang/dmd/linux/bin64/../../src/phobos/std/array.d(2907): Error: cannot have
array of `void(string, int, int)`
/dlang/dmd/linux/bin64/../../src/phobos/std/array.d(2976): Error: cannot have
array of `inout void(string, int, int)`
/dlang/dmd/linux/bin64/../../src/phobos/std/array.d(3369): Error: template
instance `std.array.Appender!(S1[])` error instantiating
/dlang/dmd/linux/bin64/../../src/phobos/std/array.d(3879):instantiated
from here: `RefAppender!(S1[])`
onlineapp.d(12):instantiated from here: `appender!(S1[]*, S1)`
/dlang/dmd/linux/bin64/../../src/phobos/std/array.d(3429): Error: cannot have
array of `inout void(string, int, int)`
```

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

--- Comment #8 from Sobirari Muhomori  ---
(In reply to timon.gehr from comment #6)
> It would be better to have a specific feature here though. E.g. 
> 
> struct S{ @disable init; }

struct S{ @disable void init(); } ?

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

Sobirari Muhomori  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://issues.dlang.org/sh
   ||ow_bug.cgi?id=14237

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

--- Comment #7 from Jonathan M Davis  ---
(In reply to timon.gehr from comment #6)
> (In reply to Walter Bright from comment #1)
> > They're actually supposed to be overridable at the moment. I had thought
> > there might be a use for this, but so far none have materialized.
> > ...
> 
> There is one obvious use case:
> 
> struct S{ @disable enum init=0; }
> 
> It would be better to have a specific feature here though. E.g. 
> 
> struct S{ @disable init; }

I would have thought that

struct S{ @disable this(); }

would do that in addition to making

S s;

illegal. I was surprised to find out that it didn't. But if there _is_ a good
reason for

S s = S.init;

to still work with @disable this(); was used (though I certainly can't think of
one), then @disable init; should probably imply @disable this();.

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

timon.g...@gmx.ch changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||timon.g...@gmx.ch

--- Comment #6 from timon.g...@gmx.ch ---
(In reply to Walter Bright from comment #1)
> They're actually supposed to be overridable at the moment. I had thought
> there might be a use for this, but so far none have materialized.
> ...

There is one obvious use case:

struct S{ @disable enum init=0; }

It would be better to have a specific feature here though. E.g. 

struct S{ @disable init; }

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

davi...@fb.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||davi...@fb.com

--- Comment #4 from davi...@fb.com ---
*** Issue 13202 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

--- Comment #5 from davi...@fb.com ---
I would like to see this disable or if we don't want to break backwards
compatibility for this, we should have the compiler issue a warning. As it
stands at the moment, the behavior causes more harm then good.

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://issues.dlang.org/sh
   ||ow_bug.cgi?id=12545

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com
 Blocks||12545

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://issues.dlang.org/sh
   ||ow_bug.cgi?id=12233
 Blocks||12233

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jmdavisp...@gmx.com

--- Comment #3 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com ---
*** Issue 8817 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

--

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[d-bugmail]

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7066


Jesse Phillips jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.co
   ||m


--- Comment #2 from Jesse Phillips jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.com 2014-02-24 
22:00:11 PST ---
How about it is disable until a compelling argument is provided. Or if someone
complains during a beta.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---

[Issue 7066] You can redefine .init and .stringof without error

[d-bugmail]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7066


Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||spec
 CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com
   Severity|normal  |enhancement


--- Comment #1 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-01-21 
01:11:11 PST ---
They're actually supposed to be overridable at the moment. I had thought there
might be a use for this, but so far none have materialized.

But to change it is an enhancement request.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---