--- Comment #27 from Don <> 2010-08-19 07:39:48 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> (In reply to comment #20)
> > (In reply to comment #19)
> > > Don, which version of the patch did you apply - the one attached here or 
> > > the
> > > one I applied to LDC? 
> > 
> > The one attached here.
> Well, as Walter pointed out the attached patch has problems with overload
> resolution. The corrected patch doesn't though. If you're interested in 
> looking
> at it, I could make it work against the D2 frontend and post it here.
> I don't want the effort to be in vain though, so could you check with Walter
> whether he'd accept a patch that works as described in comment #9?

>From discussion with Walter --
It's too difficult to evaluate the patch in its present form. It's in two
parts, both diffed against the LDC codebase rather than DMD, and the context is
really unclear -- it's not clear which functions are being patched. I don't
think a complete patch is required for evaluation -- in fact, a complete patch
would be  more difficult to quickly understand. But if you can write the
essence of the code here, which I think is really only a couple of functions,
that should be enough. And with a explanation of what it's doing. Leave out the
myriad of changes which are just passing the module handle around.

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

Reply via email to