[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3396 --- Comment #13 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Stewart Gordon from comment #11) The compiler cannot tell the difference between d files and di files... How do you mean, the compiler can't know the filename extension of the file passed into it? It could, but it doesn't, and it shouldn't. d files and di files are the same thing to the compiler. --
[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3396 --- Comment #14 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Stewart Gordon from comment #12) http://dlang.org/function.html Functions without bodies: int foo(); that are not declared as abstract are expected to have their implementations elsewhere, and that implementation will be provided at the link step. Where does the spec indicate that functions that _are_ declared as abstract can also have their implementations elsewhere? Where does it say that they can't? --
[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3396 --- Comment #15 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com --- (In reply to yebblies from comment #14) Where does it say that they can't? If such code is legal, the spec needs to explain its semantics somewhere. --
[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3396 yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||blah38...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com --- *** Issue 13278 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** --
[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3396
--- Comment #7 from Denis Shelomovskij verylonglogin@gmail.com ---
(In reply to yebblies from comment #6)
This code:
abstract class A
{
abstract void M();
}
could mean one of two things:
1. M is a pure virtual function
2. M provides 'base class functionality', but this is a di file so the body
isn't present.
You misuse terminology. pure virtual function is a C++ term which means this
function should be overriden to be able to instantiate class. There is no term
for function that doesn't provide base class functionality. So D's 'abstract'
means exactly what C++'s '=0' postfix does marking function pure virtual in
contrast to e.g. C#'s 'abstract'.
--
[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3396
--- Comment #8 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Denis Shelomovskij from comment #7)
(In reply to yebblies from comment #6)
This code:
abstract class A
{
abstract void M();
}
could mean one of two things:
1. M is a pure virtual function
2. M provides 'base class functionality', but this is a di file so the body
isn't present.
You misuse terminology. pure virtual function is a C++ term which means
this function should be overriden to be able to instantiate class. There
is no term for function that doesn't provide base class functionality. So
D's 'abstract' means exactly what C++'s '=0' postfix does marking function
pure virtual in contrast to e.g. C#'s 'abstract'.
I figured people would understand what I meant. 1) is a function that has no
implementation.
--
[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3396 --- Comment #9 from Orvid King blah38...@gmail.com --- Isn't it still reasonable for DMD to at least catch this error at compile-time rather than link-time if the module containing class A was passed on the command line, and thus is one of those being compiled, and not an interface? --
[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3396 --- Comment #10 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Orvid King from comment #9) Isn't it still reasonable for DMD to at least catch this error at compile-time rather than link-time if the module containing class A was passed on the command line, and thus is one of those being compiled, and not an interface? The compiler cannot tell the difference between d files and di files... And technically you're allowed to put the implementation in a library, implement it in asm, etc --
[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3396 --- Comment #11 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com --- (In reply to Orvid King from comment #9) Isn't it still reasonable for DMD to at least catch this error at compile-time rather than link-time if the module containing class A was passed on the command line, and thus is one of those being compiled, and not an interface? This would break tools such as bud. (In reply to yebblies from comment #10) The compiler cannot tell the difference between d files and di files... How do you mean, the compiler can't know the filename extension of the file passed into it? --
[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3396 --- Comment #12 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com --- http://dlang.org/function.html Functions without bodies: int foo(); that are not declared as abstract are expected to have their implementations elsewhere, and that implementation will be provided at the link step. Where does the spec indicate that functions that _are_ declared as abstract can also have their implementations elsewhere? --
[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3396 Denis Shelomovskij verylonglogin@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||verylonglogin@gmail.com Hardware|x86 |All Resolution|--- |INVALID OS|Windows |All --- Comment #3 from Denis Shelomovskij verylonglogin@gmail.com --- This is a documented and intended behavior. According to [1]: Functions declared as abstract can still have function bodies. This is so that even though they must be overridden, they can still provide ‘base class functionality.’ It also maches C++ behavior with respect to pure virtual functions. An enhancement request to change it may be opened but this bug is invalid. [1] http://dlang.org/attribute.html#abstract --
[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3396 Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID |--- --- Comment #4 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com --- (In reply to Denis Shelomovskij from comment #3) This is a documented and intended behavior. According to [1]: Functions declared as abstract can still have function bodies. But A.M has no function body. So what's the relevance? This is so that even though they must be overridden, they can still provide ‘base class functionality.’ But no base class functionality has been provided. As such, the compiler cannot resolve the call to super.M and therefore should error. It also maches C++ behavior with respect to pure virtual functions. What exactly does the C++ standard say about this? That said, is C++ behaviour relevant? D is not C++. --
[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3396 Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid CC||s...@iname.com --- Comment #2 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-02-10 10:45:07 PST --- (In reply to comment #1) Created an attachment (id=1072) [details] abstract methods not being flagged as unimplemented AIUI a method declared without the abstract attribute is taken to reference a function defined elsewhere. Since no library or object file that defines such a function has been linked in, the linker errors. The original testcase is different: A.m is declared as abstract, so the compiler should reject the attempt to call it there and then. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3396] Call of abstract method not detected by semantic check
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3396 --- Comment #1 from rjmcgu...@gmail.com 2012-02-06 04:07:53 PST --- Created an attachment (id=1072) abstract methods not being flagged as unimplemented I encountered this problem in a library, what I found interesting was that the program compiled and ran without crashing, just had empty output where I was expecting text. Attachment is a simpler test case with similar outcome: $ dmd test.d test.o:(.rodata+0xb0): undefined reference to `_D4test1A2a1MFZAya' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status --- errorlevel 1 $ dmd -c test.d $ -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
