Re: Creating a new type, to get strong-ish type checking and restrict usage to certain operations, using struct perhaps
On Saturday, 22 July 2017 at 06:08:59 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote: On Saturday, 22 July 2017 at 03:18:29 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote: [...] I saw David Nadlinger's units package. I'd like to know how the strong typing works. By wrapping in structs and overloading operators [1][2][3][4]. [1] https://github.com/klickverbot/phobos/blob/units/std/units.d#L727 [2] https://github.com/klickverbot/phobos/blob/units/std/units.d#L736 [3] https://github.com/klickverbot/phobos/blob/units/std/units.d#L756 [4] https://github.com/klickverbot/phobos/blob/units/std/units.d#L765
Re: Creating a new type, to get strong-ish type checking and restrict usage to certain operations, using struct perhaps
On Saturday, 22 July 2017 at 03:18:29 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote: I guess part of my question, which I didn't really highlight well enough, is the issue of strong typing. [...] Going back to the original example of packed bcd stored in a uint64_t say, first thing is that I want to ban illegal mixing of arbitrary binary values in ordinary uint64_tmtypes with decimal types, again no assignment, addition, comoarisons etc across types at all allowed. And no friendly automagically conversions [...] All of this should be covered by wrapping in structs and overloading the appropriate operators for the types in question [1][2][3], which is why the BCDInteger struct shell I wrote has the "Overload operators" comment. [1] https://dlang.org/spec/operatoroverloading.html#binary [2] https://dlang.org/spec/operatoroverloading.html#assignment [3] https://dlang.org/spec/operatoroverloading.html#op-assign
Re: Creating a new type, to get strong-ish type checking and restrict usage to certain operations, using struct perhaps
On Saturday, 22 July 2017 at 03:18:29 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote: [...] I saw David Nadlinger's units package. I'd like to know how the strong typing works.
Re: Creating a new type, to get strong-ish type checking and restrict usage to certain operations, using struct perhaps
On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 18:49:21 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote: I was think about how to create a new type that holds packed bcd values, of a choice of widths, that must fit into a uint32_t or a uint64_t (not really long multi-byte objects). I am not at all sure how to do it. I thought about using a templated struct to simply wrap a uint of a chosen width, and perhaps use alias this to make things nicer. I guess part of my question, which I didn't really highlight well enough, is the issue of strong typing. Example: physical units types, such as amps and volts, implemented as say a double or float or real (want to template that) but disallow evil assignments, comparisons, addition etc of mixed types. Another one would be the prevention of mixing pounds and pence by straight addition, or straight comparisons and blocking straight assignment. I'm assuming in the latter case you might use a machine-architecture native integral type of whatever width, again templating wanted. These are all really old requests, I'm sure, but I would appreciate a start as to how to implement the strong type checking in D without too much pain. Going back to the original example of packed bcd stored in a uint64_t say, first thing is that I want to ban illegal mixing of arbitrary binary values in ordinary uint64_tmtypes with decimal types, again no assignment, addition, comoarisons etc across types at all allowed. And no friendly automagically conversions from packed bcd to binary on the fly either - I want to treat that kind of usage as a straight bug by the user, for the moment at least, anyway, as I don't want to encourage silent horrible inefficiency creeping in.
Re: Creating a new type, to get strong-ish type checking and restrict usage to certain operations, using struct perhaps
On 07/21/2017 11:49 AM, Cecil Ward wrote: I was think about how to create a new type that holds packed bcd values, of a choice of widths, that must fit into a uint32_t or a uint64_t (not really long multi-byte objects). I am not at all sure how to do it. I thought about using a templated struct to simply wrap a uint of a chosen width, and perhaps use alias this to make things nicer. Andrei's checkedint may give ideas: https://dlang.org/phobos/std_experimental_checkedint.html He presented it in this talk: http://dconf.org/2017/talks/alexandrescu.html ... which is missing the following video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29h6jGtZD-U ... which has a longer version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U7WAlKpQ Ali
Re: Creating a new type, to get strong-ish type checking and restrict usage to certain operations, using struct perhaps
On Friday, 21 July 2017 at 18:49:21 UTC, Cecil Ward wrote:
I was think about how to create a new type that holds packed
bcd values, of a choice of widths, that must fit into a
uint32_t or a uint64_t (not really long multi-byte objects). I
am not at all sure how to do it. I thought about using a
templated struct to simply wrap a uint of a chosen width, and
perhaps use alias this to make things nicer.
That's usually how this is done. Take a look at the new
std.experimental.checkedint for inspiration [1].
Here's a shell to start with (fill in:
---
struct BCDInteger(ubyte bitWidth) if (bitWidth <= 128)
{
private:
enum byteWidth = // Add bit to byte width conversion (or just
take byte width as template parameter)
ubyte[byteWidth] store;
public:
// Add constructor(s)/static factory functions
// Overload operators,
// Add conversions to other integer formats
// Add alias this for conversion to two complements format
}
---
[1]
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/blob/v2.075.0/std/experimental/checkedint.d#L213
Creating a new type, to get strong-ish type checking and restrict usage to certain operations, using struct perhaps
I was think about how to create a new type that holds packed bcd values, of a choice of widths, that must fit into a uint32_t or a uint64_t (not really long multi-byte objects). I am not at all sure how to do it. I thought about using a templated struct to simply wrap a uint of a chosen width, and perhaps use alias this to make things nicer.
