Don <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID

--- Comment #6 from Don <> 2010-08-13 22:33:12 PDT ---
>It's exactly the same issue as: typeof(int) is not legal.(In reply to comment 
> This spec is way to sh... I mean incomplete to interpret it literally. Also it
> is known that the spec is downright incorrect in many cases. I don't know why
> you would close this bug as invalid just because of the spec text.

NO. I requested Walter to make this change, and he rejected this before. It is
definitely NOT a bug. A built-in type is not a D symbol.

> Also it's
> very inconsistent to exclude built-in types. About it being intentional by
> Walter: he actually fixed the mentioned bug 1341 and didn't close it as
> invalid. 

No, *I* changed the description of the bug after discussion with Walter. It was
originally "typeof(int) should probably be legal".

> Finally, it's a D1 problem too.

No it isn't. It's an enhancement which would break existing code.

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

Reply via email to