--- Comment #2 from 2010-01-12 03:33:06 PST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is because bug 52 was fixed. The compiler used to accept all kinds of
> garbage.

If I am not misunderstanding you and the snippet I posted is in fact invalid
code (it looks very strange indeed, but this is the only working version I and
the folks at #d could come up with), there are now two seperate issues:

Firstly, this bug should in fact be an »accepts-invalid« one, since it compiles
if you put the function declarations in a certain order (see the original

Secondly, there really ought to be a way to get this check to work for *both*
overloaded and non-overloaded functions – or neither of them. With my language
designer as well as my developer hat on, the restriction to non-overloaded
functions is a rather annoying shortcoming…

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

Reply via email to