[Issue 2588] std.signals should not use 'length' stealth keyword in indexing

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2588 Denis verylonglogin@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 8023] (Regression git) Methods defined in external object files when template alias parameter is involved

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8023 --- Comment #3 from Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com 2012-05-04 01:38:44 PDT --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd

[Issue 8016] Methods defined in external object files when template alias parameter is involved

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8016 Leandro Lucarella leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED

[Issue 8030] New: Multiple override are allowed using mixin template

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8030 Summary: Multiple override are allowed using mixin template Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Keywords: accepts-invalid Severity:

[Issue 8031] New: If a class have some signals it's impossible for a derived class to have any signals

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8031 Summary: If a class have some signals it's impossible for a derived class to have any signals Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #27 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2012-05-04 04:03:36 PDT --- (In reply to comment #26) No it isn't. OOP doesn't say anything about contracts. The concept of contract is different and the question here is how

[Issue 3526] Mixin of member function not overriden by enclosing scope

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3526 Denis verylonglogin@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 8030] Multiple override are allowed using mixin template

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8030 --- Comment #1 from Denis verylonglogin@gmail.com 2012-05-04 15:48:06 MSD --- Or, if this shouldn't rise an error, this also should compiles: --- class B: A { mixin T; mixin T; override string f() { return B; } } --- Error:

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #28 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2012-05-04 04:48:20 PDT --- (In reply to comment #27) (In reply to comment #26) There's no reason to doubt you are telling the truth, so this must be quite an interesting case of confirmation

[Issue 8032] New: `mixin template` before virtual method with same method causes an error

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8032 Summary: `mixin template` before virtual method with same method causes an error Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #29 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2012-05-04 05:35:12 PDT --- (In reply to comment #28) The literally FIRST hit takes to a slide deck, see http://goo.gl/544fU. There there is theory and examples on how

[Issue 5028] Problem with named mixins in base class and derived class

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5028 Denis verylonglogin@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #30 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2012-05-04 05:57:39 PDT --- (In reply to comment #29) (In reply to comment #28) The literally FIRST hit takes to a slide deck, see http://goo.gl/544fU. There there is theory and examples

[Issue 8020] std.stdio can't open UTF16 file names in Windows

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8020 --- Comment #4 from Oleg Kuporosov oleg.kuporo...@gmail.com 2012-05-04 06:05:24 PDT --- Dmitry, we should not assume the name string is in UTF8, it may be also some another 8-bit code page in being supported in Windows, like 125x and so on.

[Issue 8033] New: Named template mixins conflicts with unnamed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8033 Summary: Named template mixins conflicts with unnamed Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal

[Issue 8034] New: Template mixins creates ambiguous virtual function

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8034 Summary: Template mixins creates ambiguous virtual function Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Keywords: accepts-invalid Severity:

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #31 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2012-05-04 06:21:14 PDT --- (In reply to comment #30) You are making a massive assumption here, which I don't see in the slides. The assumption is that fizzbuzz gets access to

[Issue 8035] New: False hijacking error

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8035 Summary: False hijacking error Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD

[Issue 2646] Named mixins and member functions

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2646 Denis verylonglogin@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 8020] std.stdio can't open UTF16 file names in Windows

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8020 --- Comment #5 from Dmitry Olshansky dmitry.o...@gmail.com 2012-05-04 07:48:07 PDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Dmitry, we should not assume the name string is in UTF8, it may be also some another 8-bit code page in being supported in

[Issue 8032] `mixin template` before virtual method with same method causes an error

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8032 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull --- Comment #1

[Issue 8036] New: Zero-length static array of structs with elaborate destructor as struct or class field is rejected

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8036 Summary: Zero-length static array of structs with elaborate destructor as struct or class field is rejected Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All

[Issue 8038] New: #line which is in a double template instantiation doesn't work

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8038 Summary: #line which is in a double template instantiation doesn't work Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Issue 7893] Spec completely wrong for D variadic arguments on 64 bits

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7893 --- Comment #2 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-04 10:39:11 PDT --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #32 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-04 10:38:33 PDT --- (In reply to comment #30) fizzbuzz() clearly has a bug. It will fail if given an A which isn't actually a B. Exactly. fizzbuzz is calling a method of A, not a

[Issue 7893] Spec completely wrong for D variadic arguments on 64 bits

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7893 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 8032] `mixin template` before virtual method with same method causes an error

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8032 --- Comment #2 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2012-05-04 11:11:24 PDT --- Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #33 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-04 11:42:40 PDT --- (In reply to comment #32) (In reply to comment #30) fizzbuzz() clearly has a bug. It will fail if given an A which isn't actually a B. Exactly.

[Issue 8039] `scoped` doesn't call any elaborate destructors for struct fields

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8039 --- Comment #1 from Denis verylonglogin@gmail.com 2012-05-04 23:24:11 MSD --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/569 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are

[Issue 6580] scoped classes are aligned incorrectly

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6580 Denis Shelomovskij verylonglogin@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 8040] New: writeln(null) too

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8040 Summary: writeln(null) too Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal Priority: P2

[Issue 4070] prefix const on member functions considered confusing

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4070 --- Comment #5 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-05-04 13:05:39 PDT --- Symmetry is good in a language, because it makes the compiler smaller, the language manuals smaller, and makes it simpler for programers to learn the language. But breaking

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #34 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-04 13:27:50 PDT --- (In reply to comment #33) OK, so there's this issue. It may also be a documented guarantee that the return value from bar is a valid argument for foo. But you

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #35 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-04 13:41:50 PDT --- (In reply to comment #34) But you could still argue that the call is in breach of A's API and therefore the code is incorrect. Again, this is NOT true.

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #36 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-04 13:49:11 PDT --- (In reply to comment #35) snip Again, this is NOT true. The type of the argument is not statically A, it is a polymorphic type A. Why do you consider the

[Issue 7982] iota broken when start and end are unsigned and step is negative.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7982 Brad Anderson e...@gnuk.net changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull --- Comment #1 from

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #37 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-04 14:13:50 PDT --- (In reply to comment #36) (In reply to comment #35) snip Again, this is NOT true. The type of the argument is not statically A, it is a polymorphic

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #38 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-04 14:30:40 PDT --- (In reply to comment #37) Then I am lost as to what you think is broken in the design. In how many different ways does the same thing need to be explained to you

[Issue 7995] regression(2.059): D runtime initialization from C fails on OSX in 2.059, worked in 2.058

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7995 Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@me.com --- Comment

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #39 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-04 14:46:11 PDT --- Please write a piece of code that asserts when it should not, or passes when it should not, compile it, verify this incorrect behavior, and post it here.

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #40 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-04 14:52:44 PDT --- (In reply to comment #39) Please write a piece of code that asserts when it should not, or passes when it should not, compile it, verify this incorrect behavior,

[Issue 6329] Out of range exceptions not thrown in certain cases

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6329 SomeDude lovelyd...@mailmetrash.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 8041] New: __gshared/static problem

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8041 Summary: __gshared/static problem Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal Priority: P2

[Issue 8042] New: extern(C) on structs can cause stack corruption with opEquals

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8042 Summary: extern(C) on structs can cause stack corruption with opEquals Product: D Version: unspecified Platform: x86 OS/Version: All Status: NEW

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #41 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-04 15:18:08 PDT --- (In reply to comment #40) (In reply to comment #39) Please write a piece of code that asserts when it should not, or passes when it should not,

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #42 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-04 15:27:45 PDT --- (In reply to comment #41) Example #1 expects behavior based on the static type, which is not polymorphic OOP at all. True, but it is what this enhancement request

[Issue 6432] Compilation doesn't terminate on a recursive mixin error

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6432 SomeDude lovelyd...@mailmetrash.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 6838] Covariant return types don't work with static arrays

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6838 SomeDude lovelyd...@mailmetrash.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 6896] ICE(glue.c !vthis-csym): on method with alias this access

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6896 SomeDude lovelyd...@mailmetrash.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 8036] Zero-length static array of structs with elaborate destructor as struct or class field is rejected

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8036 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull --- Comment #1

[Issue 8043] New: DMD Crash on undefined identifier

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8043 Summary: DMD Crash on undefined identifier Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #43 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-04 17:40:19 PDT --- (In reply to comment #42) True, but it is what this enhancement request is all about. Breaking correct OOP behavior is not an enhancement. It will not

[Issue 8043] DMD Crash on undefined identifier

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8043 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #44 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-04 17:50:19 PDT --- (In reply to comment #43) (In reply to comment #42) True, but it is what this enhancement request is all about. Breaking correct OOP behavior is not an

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #45 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-04 18:18:11 PDT --- (In reply to comment #44) But going by comment 26, there is no breakage of correct OOP behaviour involved. So how is this relevant? This has already

[Issue 7900] CTFE Internal error with -inline and associative arrays

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7900 --- Comment #4 from brian-sch...@cox.net 2012-05-04 18:37:02 PDT --- Using DMD from git (b488853f4d3617945851d5d0a2ac20ccb7dab631), the error message now shows: tmp.d(21): Error: CTFE internal error: illegal value TOK232.children dmd:

[Issue 8044] New: Print names, not casted values when using enum template parameter

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8044 Summary: Print names, not casted values when using enum template parameter Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity:

[Issue 8045] New: Postblit should be called on function call initilalizer that returns ref

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8045 Summary: Postblit should be called on function call initilalizer that returns ref Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW

[Issue 6857] Precondition contract checks should be statically bound.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857 --- Comment #46 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2012-05-04 22:58:38 PDT --- (In reply to comment #45) (In reply to comment #44) But going by comment 26, there is no breakage of correct OOP behaviour involved. So how is this relevant?