Christian Kamm <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |kamm-removet...@incasoftwar
                   |                            |

--- Comment #8 from Christian Kamm <>  
2009-07-13 09:41:53 PDT ---
> "storage class has no effect" seems to be the wrong wording.

I'll change it if you come up with a nicer error message. "cannot be auto"
would've been consistent with other error messages of this kind, but I thought
the "has no effect" one was nicer.

> Firstly, it'll be a case of doesn't make sense rather than has no effect;
> secondly, this is making it not a storage class at all.

That's arguable. My reasoning was that as a do-nothing storage class, auto
makes sense everywhere. Its only 'effect' is to allow type inference in the
absence of another storage class.

> Moreover, should we get rid of it straight off, or deprecate it first?

I would've if it had ever been in the D1 spec, but as far as I remember it's
around purely as a holdover from pre-D1.

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to