http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3430
Summary: Cannot use constructor in member function default
argument
Product: D
Version: 1.00
Platform: All
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1183
Max Samukha samu...@voliacable.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1405
Max Samukha samu...@voliacable.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1406
Max Samukha samu...@voliacable.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1456
Max Samukha samu...@voliacable.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1405
--- Comment #3 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2009-10-21 01:20:20 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
dmd 2.035 outputs immutable(immutable(immutable(char)[])[]) which seems to be
correct
Technically yes, though it ought to collapse the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1503
--- Comment #2 from Max Samukha samu...@voliacable.com 2009-10-21 01:27:05
PDT ---
An extra alias can be added to stop the gap:
template Foo(T)
{
alias T Type;
}
template Foos(A...)
{
alias A Foos;
}
alias Foos!(Foo!(int),
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1405
--- Comment #4 from Max Samukha samu...@voliacable.com 2009-10-21 01:43:47
PDT ---
Probably, yes. On the other hand, the non-normalized string can be easily
parsed as immutable reference to immutable array of immutable strings. Anyway,
it is
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2708
Max Samukha samu...@voliacable.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3429
--- Comment #1 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-10-21 02:26:17 PDT ---
Looks very similar to bug 2325 (but 2325 is D1-only). Probably has the same
root cause.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2862
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|2.028 |1.00
--- Comment #1 from
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3429
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3380
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3431
Summary: Automatic deduction of anonymous delegate signatures
Product: D
Version: 2.034
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3432
Summary: ICE(e2ir.c): declaring local template function and
casting it
Product: D
Version: 2.036
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3432
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3433
Summary: [tdpl] Comparing structs for equality is not
member-by-member
Product: D
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3433
David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dsim...@yahoo.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3433
--- Comment #3 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2009-10-21
08:56:13 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Not sure if bitwise comparison should or shouldn't be the default, this is
subjective.
Well bitwise comparison breaks
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3433
--- Comment #4 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2009-10-21
14:15:28 PDT ---
the default opEquals on a struct that contains only an integer member does a
bitwise comparison. You may interpret this as it does this because this is
20 matches
Mail list logo
