http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3559
--- Comment #2 from [email protected] 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 report). 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: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
