[DGD] Overriding kfuns

[Blain]

Ok, that's a difference from what I'm used to. Good to know.

On Feb 8, 2017 4:04 PM, <bart at wotf.org> wrote:

> If explode() wasn't a kfun, you'd get an undefined function error
> according to
> the rules of DGD's lpc dialect. When compiling the code for the member()
> lfun,
> it simply doesn't know yet about the later explode() lfun, unless you
> provide
> a prototype.
>
> Now, explode is a kfun, so when it gets referenced in member(), dgd still
> doesn't know about your lfun, but it does know about the kfun, so you get
> no
> error.
>
> Now, the bytecode to call an lfun is different from the bytecode to call a
> kfun, and member() has been compiled to use bytecode for calling the kfun
> so
> it will never look at your lfun at all.
>
> As an aside, functions defined in the auto object have similar properties
> (and
> iirc calling an afun also uses different bytecode)
>
> So for all I can tell, its a combination of the language rules and the
> design
> of dgd.
>
> Bart.
>
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:36:47 -0600, Blain wrote
> > Quick question.
> >
> > lfun: member()
> > lfun: explode()
> >
> > My lfun member() was using the kfun explode() instead of my lfun
> > explode() further down in the object until I added a prototype for
> > explode() at the top of the file.  Is this by design?
> ____________________________________________
> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>
>
> --
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/
> http://www.om-d.org/
>
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd