On 11/18/2012 09:19 AM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
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)
TDPL is very explicit about this.
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.
It is very relevant if the goal is to improve the situation.
