[Issue 692] rules for assigning to complex types are too strict
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=692 RazvanN changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC||razvan.nitu1...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #7 from RazvanN --- Closing as WONTFIX as per Andrei and Don's comments. --
[Issue 692] rules for assigning to complex types are too strict
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=692 --- Comment #6 from kenn...@gmail.com 2011-05-15 09:33:09 PDT --- *** Issue 6006 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 692] rules for assigning to complex types are too strict
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=692 Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||and...@metalanguage.com Version|0.177 |D1 AssignedTo|nob...@puremagic.com|bugzi...@digitalmars.com --- Comment #3 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2010-11-26 13:31:34 PST --- Marking this as D1 only as D2 will only use library complex types. I think this is a wontfix as D1 is frozen, but will leave the decision to Walter. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 692] rules for assigning to complex types are too strict
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=692 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc --- Comment #4 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-11-26 14:36:48 PST --- This is not the right place to discuss this, but I remember a discussion about removing the implementation of complex numbers (and move it into Phobos) and part of their syntax (ireal, ifloat, etc), but to keep complex literals in D2 (like a + 0.0fi). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 692] rules for assigning to complex types are too strict
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=692 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au --- Comment #5 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-11-26 22:17:30 PST --- I don't see any good reason for this strictness. There is a good reason. It was a deliberate decision. I do not know how the rules could be weakened, without major changes to the lookup rules. Originally, the test cases did compile. But the problem is, with the broken implicit conversion rules we've inherited from C, it interferes with function overloading in a horrible way. Consider: void foo(real x); Then you add void foo(creal x); And suddenly foo(7.0); doesn't compile any more. The implicit conversions real - creal were removed for this reason. It's the lesser of two evils. Now, I've been planning a proposal for changing the implicit conversion rules for numeric literals, and possibly that make this possible as well. But it's a big change, even for D2. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
