http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6338
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6922
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzi...@kyllingen.net
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6922
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, rejects-valid
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2486
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Platform|x86 |All
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6912
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|rejects-valid
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6912
--- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-11-10 06:07:48 PST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I think this should be accepts-invalid, since the given example code should
not
compile.
Wow, I'm sorry, and thank you for your fix.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6912
--- Comment #6 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2011-11-10
06:49:38 PST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
I think this should be accepts-invalid, since the given example code should
not
compile.
Wow,
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6928
Summary: alias this, immutable and common type fail in presence
of fields with indirections
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6929
Summary: [ICE] typeMerge crashes in presence of ambiguous alias
this conversions
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
Summary: combined type of immutable(T) and inout(T) should be
inout(const(T))
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
--- Comment #2 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2011-11-10 11:16:41 PST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I'm not seeing a good use case here.
Can't you just do:
return condition ? x : new inout(int[])(2);
Is this better?
immutable(int[]) bar(){
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
--- Comment #4 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2011-11-10 11:42:45 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
So let my try to understand what inout(const(T)) actually means.
If inout resolves to mutable or const, this becomes const(T)
If inout resolves to
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
--- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-11-10 11:59:36 PST ---
(In reply to comment #0)
inout(const(int[])) foo(inout(int[]) x){
import std.random;
bool condition = cast(bool)uniform(0,2);
return condition ? x :
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
--- Comment #7 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2011-11-10
12:38:04 PST ---
What it does is allow you to return data that is immutable, but is not part of
the input, and still have it be immutable after inout is resolved.
The
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
--- Comment #8 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2011-11-10 12:39:59 PST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I think this issue is an enhancement.
I strongly disagree. What qualifies it as an enhancement for you?
With current dmd implementation, the result
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6922
--- Comment #3 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-11-10 12:48:18 PST ---
From discussion in https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/505
1. inout + const of T should parse [1a] const(T) or [1b] inout(T)?
2. or introduce new
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
--- Comment #9 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2011-11-10
12:50:44 PST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #6)
I think this issue is an enhancement.
I strongly disagree. What qualifies it as an enhancement for
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6922
--- Comment #4 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2011-11-10 12:57:55 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
From discussion in https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/505
1. inout + const of T should parse [1a] const(T) or [1b] inout(T)?
2. or
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6922
--- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-11-10 13:10:16 PST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
If you disagree, with what part of the explanation do you disagree?
No, I don't disagree your explanation. My only argument is that is
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
--- Comment #10 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2011-11-10 13:12:29 PST ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #6)
I think this issue is an enhancement.
I strongly disagree. What qualifies it as an
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6922
--- Comment #6 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2011-11-10 13:14:59 PST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
If you disagree, with what part of the explanation do you disagree?
No, I don't disagree your explanation. My only
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
--- Comment #11 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2011-11-10
13:22:28 PST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
inout's primary focus is transferring the type modifier from the arguments
to
the return type.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
--- Comment #12 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2011-11-10 13:33:33 PST ---
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
inout's primary focus is transferring the type modifier from the
arguments to
the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
--- Comment #13 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2011-11-10
13:41:52 PST ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #11)
You may be misunderstanding me. I agree this is a bug. I'll try to be
clearer:
1.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6930
--- Comment #14 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2011-11-10 13:58:05 PST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #11)
You may be misunderstanding me. I agree this is a bug. I'll try to be
clearer:
1.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6790
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Sternberg jonathansternb...@gmail.com 2011-11-10
16:18:31 PST ---
As of dmd 2.056, this now throws core.exception.OutOfMemoryError. No
recompilation was needed, but recompilation resulted in the same thing.
This
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5311
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5115
--- Comment #9 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-11-10 23:11:38 PST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
scoped!Foo() returns a temporary of type scoped!(Foo).Scoped (or something
like
that).
This temporary is implicitly converted to Foo
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5115
--- Comment #9 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2011-11-10 23:11:38 PST ---
(In reply to comment #8)
scoped!Foo() returns a temporary of type scoped!(Foo).Scoped (or something
like
that).
This temporary is implicitly converted to Foo
32 matches
Mail list logo
