On Saturday, 17 November 2012 at 23:28:21 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/18/2012 12:14 AM, Manfred Nowak wrote:
Maxim Fomin wrote:
related to the issue?
... I can see that the definition is ambiguous. And if the
coder
didnt't realize the ambiguousness as you do ...
-manfred
The code given in the original post is valid D code.
This is a poor argument. Validness of code is determined by the
spec (and I have not found anything related to the issue) and is
supported by presence of alternative compilers so you can switch
to another if you have problems with one of them.
This is not the case of D. Unfortunately D spec is incomplete and
does not give answers even for not tricky questions. Also, only
few commits to dmd which affect language have corresponding pulls
to dlang.org. And presence of alternative compilers does not help
in majority cases because they share same frontend as well as
bugs in it. This makes D's bugs to be a chief if you cannot
fallback to ldc or gdc and makes theoretical validness of code
irrelevant at practice.
