http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4397
Don changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |performance
--- Comment #9 from Don 2010-07-28
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4397
--- Comment #8 from Sobirari Muhomori 2010-07-28
19:57:40 PDT ---
Well... there can be a problem with immutable literals because immutability is
transitive... hmm...
Even if literals aren't immutable, compiler can still catch assignment of
lit
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4530
Stewart Gordon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@iname.com
--- Comment #2 from St
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4530
Justin Spahr-Summers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||justin.spahrsumm...@gmail.c
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4530
Summary: Tidier function types
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
A
Brad Roberts:
> Um.. stop that. Don't mix bug reports with discussion of only
> semi-related stuff together. Don't use bugzilla as a discussion thread in
> general.
You are right, that muddles two different things. To fix the situation I have
closed it and created a bug report (4529) and an e
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4529
Summary: dmd crash with writeln of functions
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4526
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4528
Summary: Better error message for private abstract method
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: enhancemen
> --- Comment #0 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-07-28 14:49:50 PDT ---
>
> (cut)
>
> By the way, what's the point in allowing/keeping ugly and error-prone function
> literals in D2?
>
> It's better for D2 to keep/allow only _one_ standard, clean and readable
> syntax
> for functions pointers
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4527
Summary: writeln/typeid to use string type names
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Compon
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4526
Summary: dmd crash with writeln of functions
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4329
--- Comment #9 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-07-28 14:13:30 PDT ---
One case, dmd 2.047:
void main() {
auto x = foo.bar!();
}
test.d(2): Error: undefined identifier foo
test.d(2): Error: __error isn't a template
--
Configure issuemail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2454
Don changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1418
Don changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Don 2010-07-28 13:15:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4397
--- Comment #7 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-07-28 13:06:29 PDT ---
>and the compiler can't just randomly insert memory allocations.
Add "that are not supposed to be there".
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4397
--- Comment #6 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-07-28 13:05:25 PDT ---
It's not valid. This is a systems programming language, and the compiler can't
just randomly insert memory allocations. What if you wrote a kernel in D? I
insist on the wrong-code
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463
--- Comment #64 from Leandro Lucarella 2010-07-28 13:04:07
PDT ---
(In reply to comment #62)
> (In reply to comment #61)
> > Even when I agree that the GC needs a lot of refactoring, I don't think
> > it's a
> > good idea to include it in thi
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463
--- Comment #63 from Leandro Lucarella 2010-07-28 12:57:35
PDT ---
(In reply to comment #60)
>- explicitly support SENTINEL (I have no idea why the code apparently
> worked
> with SENTINEL enabled; at least it should have messed up the bi
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463
--- Comment #62 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-07-28 12:49:49 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #61)
> Even when I agree that the GC needs a lot of refactoring, I don't think it's a
> good idea to include it in this patch, it makes much harder to underst
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4525
Nick Sabalausky changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |regression
--- Comment #1 from Nick
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4525
Summary: Array member call syntax can't find matches in current
class
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: rej
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4397
--- Comment #5 from Don 2010-07-28 12:29:57 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Shouldn't literals be immutable and the code - invalid?
I think they *should*. I argued strongly for immutable array literals. But I
lost.
So the code is valid, but
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463
--- Comment #61 from Leandro Lucarella 2010-07-28 12:23:01
PDT ---
(In reply to comment #60)
> Created an attachment (id=701) [details]
> D1 - patch for Tango's runtime to enable precise GC scanning
>
> - lots of nasty refactoring in gcx.d:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4397
--- Comment #4 from Sobirari Muhomori 2010-07-28
12:04:59 PDT ---
Shouldn't literals be immutable and the code - invalid?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail becau
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4516
--- Comment #3 from Sobirari Muhomori 2010-07-28
11:41:50 PDT ---
See bug 1160
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4520
--- Comment #6 from Sobirari Muhomori 2010-07-28
11:24:39 PDT ---
I'm afraid, it's useless. Doxygen uses its own markup and macros, they will be
treated as plain text in ddoc comments. It's useless.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2742
Stewart Gordon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com
--- Commen
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4522
Stewart Gordon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4521
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463
nfx...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #696 is|0 |1
obsolete|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3935
Trass3r changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Trass3r 2010-07-2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4521
--- Comment #5 from Andrej Mitrovic 2010-07-28
06:38:07 PDT ---
Actually I think I'm confusing myself with how dynamic allocation works. I
thought the dynamic array always have to be called with new, but it appears I
can change the length of a
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4521
--- Comment #4 from Andrej Mitrovic 2010-07-28
05:55:29 PDT ---
But isn't there a difference between arrays that had all of their elements
removed and arrays that have not yet been allocated in the first place?
I filed it since Walter seems
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2931
Don changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Don 2010-07-28 05:34:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4521
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4521
Don changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
CC|
37 matches
Mail list logo
