I created a new bug in Bugzilla for the error message, since a specific case was resolved and it's really a completely different issue.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Don Clugston <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ dmd-beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
