On 06/19/12 17:32, Timon Gehr wrote: > On 06/19/2012 05:08 PM, Artur Skawina wrote: >> >> Yes, it can be surprising, but I'm not convinced it's actually wrong >> behavior (the bug is http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2043) >> > > It is not this bug. (And what is listed there is clearly wrong > behaviour, because it can be used to break the type system.)
It's not that simple. I remember considering the alternatives when I originally ran into this, and they have problems too. The "static foreach" case may be special, possibly. >> [1] I don't do that new kinky lambda syntax, sorry. ;) > > Your embarrassment about this issue is justifiable. > I'm proud of it. ;) But maybe it has something to do with the fact that my compiler doesn't support them... artur
