http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8220
--- Comment #11 from klickverbot <[email protected]> 2012-06-21 14:46:24 PDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > This example has been around a long time, and I've been telling people that > > that's the way to do it. I'm really reluctant to break it, > > The behaviour must be fixed for __traits(compiles,...), but not necessarily > for > typeof. I think this would be opening a very big can of worms, because is(typeof(…)) has been equivalent to __traits(compiles, …) so far (well, for things that have a type). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
