http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5328


Don <clugd...@yahoo.com.au> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |clugd...@yahoo.com.au


--- Comment #2 from Don <clugd...@yahoo.com.au> 2010-12-06 23:35:07 PST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It's a feature, not a bug. You can take the address of methods without
> providing an object reference (i.e. no this pointer, or what would be the
> context member of method delegates).


> What is happening here is that the language "designers" just didn't feel like
> introducing a dedicated separate function type for this purpose. Instead, they
> reused the "normal" function pointer type, even if calling it makes no sense.
> Basically it's a quick language hack that endangers type-safety and confuses
> users.

Are you sure this is an intentional design decision, and not just an oversight?
Was it discussed by Walter and Andrei in the newsgroup?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to