[DGD] Overriding kfuns

[Blain]

And thanks for the response. :)

On Feb 8, 2017 4:05 PM, "Blain" <blain20 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>