"Walter Bright" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... >A subtle but nasty problem - are default arguments part of the type, or >part of the declaration? > > See http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3866 > > Currently, they are both, which leads to the nasty behavior in the bug > report. > > The problem centers around name mangling. If two types mangle the same, > then they are the same type. But default arguments are not part of the > mangled string. Hence the schizophrenic behavior. > > But if we make default arguments solely a part of the function > declaration, then function pointers (and delegates) cannot have default > arguments. (And maybe this isn't a bad thing?)
>From what I remember, function pointer parameter names have similar problems. It never made any sense to me to have default parameters or parameter names as part of the type.
