https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
RazvanN changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||razvan.nitu1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #23 from
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #22 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2009-07-31
06:11:34 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #20)
(In reply to comment #18)
It's not going away because MyNiftyPointerTo!(C).getValue is an lvalue.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #5 from Chad Joan chadj...@gmail.com 2009-07-30 01:50:28 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I think you are right that it can be determined in simple cases, but for sure
there will be cases that the compiler cannot diagnose,
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #6 from Chad Joan chadj...@gmail.com 2009-07-30 02:09:09 PDT ---
On the newsgroup KennyTM~ pointed out that opDot() also suffers from this
problem:
struct S {
int s;
}
class X {
S opDot() { S temp; temp.s = 6; return temp;
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #8 from BCS shro8...@vandals.uidaho.edu 2009-07-30 09:23:10 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #5)
It's easy for the compiler to know that s2.foo.x = 5 does nothing. When
compiling with noop, the void x(int n) { _global = n;}
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #9 from Chad Joan chadj...@gmail.com 2009-07-30 10:38:44 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #5)
Of course, s2.foo().x(5) violates the principle at play here. At this
point,
the whole version(noop)
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #10 from Chad Joan chadj...@gmail.com 2009-07-30 10:46:27 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #5)
It's easy for the compiler to know that s2.foo.x = 5 does nothing. When
compiling with noop, the void
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #11 from BCS shro8...@vandals.uidaho.edu 2009-07-30 10:59:32 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #8)
This assumes that the body of x is available for analysis and is simple
enough to be analysed.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #12 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2009-07-30
11:12:25 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #9)
You make it sound like we wouldn't be able to use structs anymore!
Not the case.
What I mean is this:
original:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #13 from Chad Joan chadj...@gmail.com 2009-07-30 12:46:33 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
OK then that's another (potentially worse) problem because I can think of
several cases where I want to return a struct (by value)
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #14 from BCS shro8...@vandals.uidaho.edu 2009-07-30 13:02:20 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #13)
That'd be a start.
The problem then is that variable assignment is equivalent to function calls
with 1 parameter due to the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #16 from Chad Joan chadj...@gmail.com 2009-07-30 13:13:40 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #14)
See above. Without analyzing the function bodies, Applying all this to
functions will also ban things I'm not willing to give up.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #17 from BCS shro8...@vandals.uidaho.edu 2009-07-30 13:26:32 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #14)
See above. Without analyzing the function bodies, Applying all this to
functions will also ban
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #18 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2009-07-30
13:40:56 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Incorrect.
s is an lvalue (it isn't being returned)
s.getValue is an lvalue (pointer to some C's data, AKA a reference
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #19 from Chad Joan chadj...@gmail.com 2009-07-30 14:00:29 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
You assume that the above is a bug and what I really wanted was to return a
reference. Take another look while assuming that I actual
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #20 from Chad Joan chadj...@gmail.com 2009-07-30 14:16:00 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #18)
(In reply to comment #15)
Incorrect.
s is an lvalue (it isn't being returned)
s.getValue is an lvalue (pointer to some C's
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #21 from BCS shro8...@vandals.uidaho.edu 2009-07-30 14:35:05 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #17)
You assume that the above is a bug and what I really wanted was to return a
reference. Take another
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
--- Comment #4 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2009-07-29
10:11:26 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Actually the compiler wouldn't have to do anything special here. If the
return
of foo() were an rvalue, then *foo().a
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
Jarrett Billingsley jarrett.billings...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
20 matches
Mail list logo
