UFCS: add method chaining #17
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
filipsajdak
force-pushed
the
fsajdak-ufcs-add-method-chaining
branch
from
6d02e46 to
a254bd3
Compare
|
Interim ack: Thanks! Yes, I've been meaning to add chaining. I was thinking of implementing it later in the same function and remove this special case part of the function (I dislike that there are two paths that deal with |
|
One thing I found is that it is not working when called on a constructor call - maybe I will try to add it. std::string("this will not work").method();and this s := std::string("this will work");
s.method();will work. |
filipsajdak
force-pushed
the
fsajdak-ufcs-add-method-chaining
branch
2 times, most recently
from
6d78544 to
055b61e
Compare
filipsajdak
force-pushed
the
fsajdak-ufcs-add-method-chaining
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b067266 to
8dac3b2
Compare
filipsajdak
force-pushed
the
fsajdak-ufcs-add-method-chaining
branch
from
8dac3b2 to
5e463f0
Compare
filipsajdak
force-pushed
the
fsajdak-ufcs-add-method-chaining
branch
from
5e463f0 to
783312e
Compare
filipsajdak
force-pushed
the
fsajdak-ufcs-add-method-chaining
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7566599 to
14415a7
Compare
Former implementation was not supporting method chaining ```cpp v.a().b().c(); // failed to use UFCS ``` The change converts above code into nested call of `CPP2_UFCS` macros: ```cpp CPP2_UFCS_0(c, CPP2_UFCS_0(b, CPP2_UFCS_0(a, v) ) ); ``` Functions with expr-list are also handled.
filipsajdak
force-pushed
the
fsajdak-ufcs-add-method-chaining
branch
from
14415a7 to
b035008
Compare
|
Picking this up: How does this relate to #18? |
|
It is for the cases when the first call is done on the object by calling its method. #18 is for a case when there is a free function call and the chaining starts on the function result. |
|
This PR is replaced by: #169 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I have been playing with UFCS. I found that it doesn't support method chaining yet. So I have added it.
Former implementation was not supporting the method chaining - the below code failed to be compiled
The proposed change converts the above code into a nested call of
CPP2_UFCSmacros:CPP2_UFCS_0(c, CPP2_UFCS_0(b, CPP2_UFCS_0(a, v), 1, "arg" ) );This allows using ranges library without the need of
operator|for chaining.operator|does not work in cppfront at the moment. What I realized is that having UFCS that supports chaining solves the problem.I don't have ranges working on my current system, so I put a custom example in the regression test directory.
Having the possibility of method chaining allows us to use smart pointers and pass them to the functions that need a raw pointers.
smart.get().func(); // UFCS will be executed on raw pointer (thanks to chaining)