From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Subject: Re: Overloading operator “=” for anonymous access types?
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:01:43 +0000
Date: 2019-01-12T14:01:43+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <lyef9i0ybc.fsf@pushface.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: lymuo619yh.fsf@pushface.org
Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:
> I'm not at all clear why the example code is legal, or why it would be
> legal to call it; since 'access Cell' appears to match "neither operand
> shall be of an access-to-object type whose designated type is D or
> D'Class, where D has a user-defined primitive equality operator ..."
Still not clear.
Note to self: do *not* attempt to define "=" for anonymous access types!
Would have liked the AIs to have said "it is illegal to define "=" for
anonymous access types".
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-12 14:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-11 21:46 Overloading operator “=” for anonymous access types? daicrkk
2019-01-12 9:50 ` Simon Wright
2019-01-12 14:01 ` Simon Wright [this message]
2019-01-12 15:15 ` daicrkk
2019-01-14 23:08 ` Overloading operator "=" " Randy Brukardt
2019-01-15 0:34 ` Shark8
2019-01-15 8:38 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2019-01-15 21:00 ` Randy Brukardt
2019-01-16 15:42 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2019-01-15 8:51 ` daicrkk
2019-01-15 11:15 ` Simon Wright
2019-01-17 3:20 ` Jere
2019-01-17 8:23 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2019-01-17 22:22 ` Randy Brukardt
2019-01-18 10:17 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2019-01-18 13:27 ` Jere
2019-01-18 13:42 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox