Comment #0 by andrej.mitrovich — 2010-08-01T14:12:59Z
This is the 4th example from the title "Nested Classes" on the page http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/class.html :
import std.stdio;
class Base
{
int foo() { return 1; }
}
Base func()
{
int m = 3;
class Nested : Base
{
int foo() { return m; }
}
Base b = new Nested;
assert(b.foo() == 3); // Ok, func() is still active
return b;
}
int test()
{
Base b = func();
return b.foo(); // Error, func().m is undefined
}
void main()
{
writeln(test()); // writes 3, there was no error
}
According to the docs, this should not compile.
This looks to me like some kind of automatic closure where foo() becomes a delegate? I'm not sure..
Comment #1 by andrej.mitrovich — 2010-08-01T14:46:50Z
See also the 8th example under "Nested Functions" on this page
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/function.html. Pasted here:
void test()
{ int j;
static int s;
struct Foo
{ int a;
int bar()
{ int c = s; // ok, s is static
int d = j; // error, no access to frame of test()
int foo()
{
int e = s; // ok, s is static
int f = j; // error, no access to frame of test()
return c + a; // ok, frame of bar() is accessible,
// so are members of Foo accessible via
// the 'this' pointer to Foo.bar()
}
return 0;
}
}
}
This compiles without errors.
Comment #2 by andrej.mitrovich — 2011-05-19T22:00:38Z
This was not a rejects-valid. The compiler doesn't reject, it accepts the two code snippets.
But I think they're both correct. I've seen code similar to this in TDPL. The compiler does all the work of creating delegates when needed, right? So the docs should be updated to reflect that.
Comment #3 by andrej.mitrovich — 2012-01-04T07:47:14Z
It's the docs that are outdated, changing title and will make a pull shortly.
Comment #4 by github-bugzilla — 2012-04-14T22:41:35Z