On Thursday, 5 April 2018 at 19:31:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
And you can't abstract whether a member variable is marked with
immutable or not. That's part of the variable. Declaring an
immutable instance of an object would then treat the member
variable in immutable for that instance, so
On Thursday, April 05, 2018 13:36:07 Alex via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 21:49:08 UTC, Timoses wrote:
> > "[...] the construction of the base class can be independent
> > from the derived one."
> >
> > Hm, the points 7 and 8 don't clearly state what you wrote.
>
>
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 22:47:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Because doing that basically makes it impossible to guarantee
that the type system isn't violated. Once an immutable variable
has been initialized, its value must _never_ change. It must be
initalized exactly once, and the
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 21:49:08 UTC, Timoses wrote:
"[...] the construction of the base class can be independent
from the derived one."
Hm, the points 7 and 8 don't clearly state what you wrote.
Yes :)
But it somehow does make sense.. Still I wonder why that is so.
Let's say you
On Wednesday, April 04, 2018 21:46:13 Timoses via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 18:11:12 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> > That code doesn't compile - at least not with dmd master. It
> > gives these two errors:
> >
> > q.d(5): Error: constructor `q.A.this` missing initializer
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 16:16:24 UTC, Alex wrote:
Here is something:
https://dlang.org/spec/class.html#constructors
By the rules 7 and 8 it is suggested, what Simen already said,
the construction of the base class can be independent from the
derived one. And as such, the immutability
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 18:11:12 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 04, 2018 16:05:52 Timoses via
```
class A
{
immutable int i;
this(){}
}
class B : A
{
this()
{
this.i = 3;
super(); // <- specifically calling
On Wednesday, April 04, 2018 16:05:52 Timoses via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 10:41:52 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
> > Because by the time B's constructor is called, A might already
> > have initialized it, and rely on it never changing.
>
> What about:
>
> ```
> class
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 16:05:52 UTC, Timoses wrote:
This becomes a bit hideous, unfortunately, when there are many
initializations involved.
Found this, but it doesn't mention anything about derived
classes..
https://dlang.org/spec/class.html#field-init
Here is something:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 10:41:52 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
Because by the time B's constructor is called, A might already
have initialized it, and rely on it never changing.
What about:
```
class A
{
immutable int i;
this(){}
}
class B : A
{
this()
{
this.i = 3;
On Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 10:11:37 UTC, Timoses wrote:
Example:
```
class A
{
immutable int i;
this(){}
}
class B : A
{
this()
{
this.i = 3;
}
}
void main()
{
auto b = new B;
}
```
throws:
Error: constructor `onlineapp.A.this` missing initializer for
11 matches
Mail list logo
