On 8 February 2012 18:57, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, February 08, 2012 18:15:30 Jacob Carlborg wrote: >> But if you put the "static if"-statement after all fields, shouldn't that be >> enough to have the full size of the struct. Of course it could be hard for >> the compiler to know that there are no fields after the "static >> if"-statement. Maybe the compiler could calculate the size incrementally. > > That could cause big problems if the static if weren't after all of the member > variables. You could have multiple static ifs, each of which ended up with a > different size for the type, if there are member variables declared between > them. We _could_ make it give an error if you then added a member variable > after such a static if, but that's probably getting a bit complicated, since > more state is necessary. So, it's probably better to just disallow such static > ifs.
More specifically, it's not static if which is the problem, it's that .tupleof shouldn't be legal until all members have been declared. BTW if a static if body doesn't contain any declarations, there's not much it can contain that's meaningful! I think that based on the error message issue, the bug should stay open, but not as a regression. _______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
