[Issue 3858] New: mixin protection attribute is ignored

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3858 Summary: mixin protection attribute is ignored Product: D Version: 2.040 Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal

[Issue 3857] New: Write property for arrays does not work properly

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3857 Summary: Write property for arrays does not work properly Product: D Version: 2.040 Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P2

[Issue 3856] New: const arguments/instance attributes in conditions/invariants

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3856 Summary: const arguments/instance attributes in conditions/invariants Product: D Version: 2.040 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Issue 3604] extern(C) callable function with array parameters broken

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3604 Lars T. Kyllingstad changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzi...@kyllingen.net --- Comme

[Issue 3716] Regression (D2 only) with multi dimensional array literals

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3716 --- Comment #3 from Ellery Newcomer 2010-02-26 08:15:39 PST --- Oop. Never mind. I was looking at bug 3854 and assumed they were the same. They aren't. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You

[Issue 3437] No way to make conversions to string in pure functions.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3437 Don changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Component|DMD

[Issue 3809] Struct initializers apparently always CTFE'd, and incorrectly

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3809 Don changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au --- Comment #1 from Don 2

[Issue 3801] CTFE: this.arr[i] cannot be evaluated at compile time for structs

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3801 Don changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Severity|blocker

[Issue 2351] enum with no members allowed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2351 --- Comment #5 from Jerry Quinn 2010-02-26 05:35:27 PST --- I think the semicolon is intended to handle manifest constants. However, it doesn't look quite right. If the grammar is rewritten as follows: EnumDeclaration: enum EnumBody

[Issue 2351] enum with no members allowed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2351 --- Comment #4 from Jerry Quinn 2010-02-26 05:29:58 PST --- (In reply to comment #3) > So the meaning of that code changes from declaring an enum type with no > members > to declaring a manifest constant with value 0. That seems more reasona

[Issue 3848] functions in std.file don't take symbolic links into account

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3848 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan M Davis 2010-02-26 00:35:59 PST --- Created an attachment (id=574) Patch file for next attempt at fixing problem (instead of the full file). Here's a patch if you'd prefer that to the fully changed file. You'd nee

[Issue 3848] functions in std.file don't take symbolic links into account

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3848 Jonathan M Davis changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #572 is|0 |1 obsolete|