[Issue 2984] Failure to find front/back/popBack/popFront/etc should fall back to opApply
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2984 Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|2.029 |D2 --
[Issue 2984] Failure to find front/back/popBack/popFront/etc should fall back to opApply
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2984 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Severity|regression |major --- Comment #3 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-11-16 07:34:06 PST --- This isn't a regression -- the language changed. Bug 3514 expresses this better. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2984] Failure to find front/back/popBack/popFront/etc should fall back to opApply
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2984 --- Comment #4 from Koroskin Denis 2kor...@gmail.com 2009-11-16 07:47:14 PST --- Well, yes. It is a regression in a sense that the code used to compile but it doesn't anymore. It sees a front(), back() and empty() methods in my Vector struct (which is designed after std::vector and thus has similar members) and mistakenly assumes it is a range (and it's not). The language change shouldn't have caused this compilation error, be it implemented more correct, that's why I marked it as a regression :) -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2984] Failure to find front/back/popBack/popFront/etc should fall back to opApply
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2984 Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dsim...@yahoo.com --- Comment #5 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2009-11-16 12:44:28 PST --- *** Issue 3514 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2984] Failure to find front/back/popBack/popFront/etc should fall back to opApply
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2984 Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #6 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2009-11-16 14:04:03 PST --- Although bug 3514 came later, it captures more information, and following the fix prescribed in 3514 would make this bug sort of moot. There is no reason to have a special case of partially implemented range functions vs. opApply -- opApply should be the default choice even with valid range functions. *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 3514 *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2984] Failure to find front/back/popBack/popFront/etc should fall back to opApply
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2984 --- Comment #1 from Koroskin Denis 2kor...@gmail.com 2009-05-15 16:21:50 PDT --- Error message issued: Vector.d(83): Error: no property 'popFront' for type 'Vector!(int)' -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2984] Failure to find front/back/popBack/popFront/etc should fall back to opApply
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2984 --- Comment #2 from Koroskin Denis 2kor...@gmail.com 2009-05-15 16:22:13 PDT --- Note that adding Type[] opSlice() { return _elements[0.._size]; } to the Vector struct will result int the following error message instead: Error: undefined identifier module Vector.empty Error: function expected before (), not module Vector.empty of type void Error: undefined identifier module Vector.popFront Error: function expected before (), not module Vector.popFront of type void Error: undefined identifier module Vector.front Error: function expected before (), not module Vector.front of type void -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---