[Issue 4272] x.typeof syntax
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4272 RazvanN changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||razvan.nitu1...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #8 from RazvanN --- Closing this as there is not sufficient evidence that this will improve anything and special casing for symbols is not the way to go. --
[Issue 4272] x.typeof syntax
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4272 Andrei Alexandrescu changed: What|Removed |Added Version|future |D2 --
[Issue 4272] x.typeof syntax
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4272 dennis.m.ritc...@mail.ru changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dennis.m.ritc...@mail.ru --
[Issue 4272] x.typeof syntax
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4272 --- Comment #7 from Maxim Fomin 2012-10-07 01:08:41 PDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > The problem is that UFCS was made to work with functions and typeof is not a > > function. Accepting identifier.typeof would result in questions about which > > identifiers are valid for this and what else works besides typeof with them. > > This is not to do with UFCS. There are already many built in properties like > x.sizeof, x.init: > http://dlang.org/property.html > > typeof fits nicely as a built in property, and helps cut down on nested > brackets. Typeof is not a property either. And it differs from all those properties which, given a type or expression, provide fundamental information about their types like size, default value, name, alignment. Typeof works in opposite direction - given some expression it gives its type. BTW, identifier is a primary expression (http://dlang.org/expression.html), so, making idenfier.typeof possible and expression.typeof not (as mentioned above), raises some questions. However, if typeof is made a property too, it would be logical and consistent. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4272] x.typeof syntax
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4272 --- Comment #6 from Nick Treleaven 2012-10-06 10:28:49 PDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > The problem is that UFCS was made to work with functions and typeof is not a > function. Accepting identifier.typeof would result in questions about which > identifiers are valid for this and what else works besides typeof with them. This is not to do with UFCS. There are already many built in properties like x.sizeof, x.init: http://dlang.org/property.html typeof fits nicely as a built in property, and helps cut down on nested brackets. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4272] x.typeof syntax
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4272 Maxim Fomin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ma...@maxim-fomin.ru --- Comment #5 from Maxim Fomin 2012-10-06 06:41:10 PDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > typeof isn't a property or a function, unlike sizeof. It's like an > > is-expression, and I think that treating it like a property would be a > > mistake. > > I think (x + y).typeof should not be allowed, use the existing syntax instead. > > However, x.typeof is a useful shorthand that helps cut down on nested brackets > in is expressions and elsewhere. So I would allow both typeof(expression) and > identifier.typeof to be used, but *not* expression.typeof. > > The type of an instance is a natural property of the instance IMO. The problem is that UFCS was made to work with functions and typeof is not a function. Accepting identifier.typeof would result in questions about which identifiers are valid for this and what else works besides typeof with them. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4272] x.typeof syntax
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4272 Nick Treleaven changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ntrel-pub...@yahoo.co.uk --- Comment #4 from Nick Treleaven 2012-10-06 06:22:10 PDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > typeof isn't a property or a function, unlike sizeof. It's like an > is-expression, and I think that treating it like a property would be a > mistake. I think (x + y).typeof should not be allowed, use the existing syntax instead. However, x.typeof is a useful shorthand that helps cut down on nested brackets in is expressions and elsewhere. So I would allow both typeof(expression) and identifier.typeof to be used, but *not* expression.typeof. The type of an instance is a natural property of the instance IMO. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4272] x.typeof syntax
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4272 Jonathan M Davis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jmdavisp...@gmx.com --- Comment #3 from Jonathan M Davis 2012-09-14 14:20:26 PDT --- typeof isn't a property or a function, unlike sizeof. It's like an is-expression, and I think that treating it like a property would be a mistake. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4272] x.typeof syntax
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4272 monarchdo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||monarchdo...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from monarchdo...@gmail.com 2012-09-14 11:17:24 PDT --- *** Issue 8661 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 4272] x.typeof syntax
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4272 Trass3r changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mrmoc...@gmx.de --- Comment #1 from Trass3r 2010-06-13 17:49:40 PDT --- Then typeid should probably also be .typeid instead of typeid() -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
