[Issue 3680] default struct constructor should not be removed
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3680 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Severity|normal |enhancement -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3699] Feature Request: while-else
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3699 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Severity|normal |enhancement -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3680] default struct constructor should not be removed
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3680 --- Comment #4 from Michel Nolard michel.nol...@gmail.com 2010-01-15 03:13:06 PST --- Ok. I clearly see your point now, and it is both practical and logical ... and I agree ! This would be quite an improvement for a lot of situations. What bothers me is this : To remove static opCall's completely is another subject... In fact, your proposal - which is a good one - implies from the opCall and default constructor removal problem to be solved at the same time. Imagine someone relying upon the constructor removal feature you depict and who would not be able to make things work in a new version. This can not be admitted. Both problems must definitely be solved and their solution's integration be planned for the same release. A case which needs clarification, by the way, is when the struct is externalized to C which does not prohibits the default construction to be used... -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3403] compiler dies with -X option
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3403 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #2 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-01-15 03:18:55 PST --- Fixed DMD1.051 and 2.036. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2601] Extraneous cast introduced in member access
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2601
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |rejects-valid
Version|2.000 |1.050
--- Comment #1 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-01-15 04:37:28 PST ---
The segfault was fixed long ago.
Reduced test case also fails on D1. I'm not certain it's a bug, though.
void next(ref int[] a) { a[0] = 0; }
void bug2601() {
int[3] b;
next(b);
}
bug.d(5): Error: cast(int[])b is not an lvalue
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 1931] dmd doesn't enforce users to use assert(0) for noreturn func
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1931 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #11 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-01-15 04:46:41 PST --- This was implemented in DMD2.031. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2278] Guarantee alignment of stack-allocated variables on x86
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2278 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bary...@smp.if.uj.edu.pl --- Comment #6 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-01-15 04:51:12 PST --- *** Issue 1847 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 1847] Structs aren't aligned on stack
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1847 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #2 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-01-15 04:51:12 PST --- *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 2278 *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2630] ddoc should be able to document unittests
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2630 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unspecified |2.038 Severity|normal |enhancement -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 1396] lazy void tuple breaks
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1396 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #4 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-01-15 05:28:50 PST --- Fixed DMD1.054. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 1652] problem with /// generating strange output
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1652 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #3 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-01-15 07:23:24 PST --- *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 1117 *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 1117] ddoc generates corrupted docs if code examples contain attributes with colons
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1117 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mrmoc...@gmx.de --- Comment #5 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-01-15 07:23:24 PST --- *** Issue 1652 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 1914] Array initialisation from const array yeilds memory trample
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1914 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Severity|major |critical -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2127] inliner turns struct return *this from by-value into by-ref
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2127 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au Severity|major |critical -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3680] default struct constructor should not be removed
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3680
--- Comment #5 from ibrahim YANIKLAR yanik...@gmail.com 2010-01-15 08:43:21
PST ---
What bothers me is this :
To remove static opCall's completely is another subject...
I will explain that by opening a new issue.
A case which needs clarification, by the way, is when the struct is
externalized to C which does not prohibits the default construction to be
used...
The implementation of the default constructor should be prohibited as the
current situation. Also the implementation of the default opCall (static ...
opCall()) should be prohibited. And implementing a non-default constructor or a
non default opCall should not cause the removal of the defaults.
--
struct S {
...
this() { ... } // should give error
}
--
struct S {
...
static S opCall() { ... } // should give error
}
--
struct S {
...
this(int a) { ... }
static S opcall(double d) { ... }
}
S s = S(); // should work
S* s = new S(); // should work
--
Is this proposal causes a problem like you have depicted? Probably I could not
understand your case.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3680] default struct constructor should not be removed
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3680 --- Comment #6 from ibrahim YANIKLAR yanik...@gmail.com 2010-01-15 09:57:39 PST --- Also this(int a = 0) and static ... opCall(int a = 0) should be prohibited. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3709] New: Associative array of associative arrays gets confused
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3709
Summary: Associative array of associative arrays gets confused
Product: D
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Mac OS X
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: and...@metalanguage.com
--- Comment #0 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2010-01-15
11:14:20 PST ---
void main() {
in[int][int] a;
a[5] = (int[int]).init;
}
Error is:
/path/to/druntime/import/object.di(293): Error: cannot implicitly convert
expression (_D6object26__T16AssociativeArrayTiTiZ16AssociativeArray6__initZ) of
type AssociativeArray!(int,int) to int[int]
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3680] default struct constructor should not be removed
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3680 --- Comment #7 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-01-15 11:45:32 PST --- (In reply to comment #6) Also this(int a = 0) and static ... opCall(int a = 0) should be prohibited. That's bug 3438. I think the underlying issue is, that we need this() with no parameters. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2451] Cannot add a Variant to associative array
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2451
David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dsim...@yahoo.com
--- Comment #2 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2010-01-15 12:20:57 PST ---
Adding structs that use opAssign or postblit to an AA is broken. The following
also produces a range violation:
struct Foo {
this(this){}
}
void main() {
Foo[string] stuff;
stuff[foo] = Foo.init;
}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2451] Cannot add a Variant to associative array
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2451
--- Comment #3 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2010-01-15
13:16:14 PST ---
Perfect timing, thanks. I just ran into that but had no time to investigate.
The type Tuple!(uint, count, float, distance)[uint] does not work, but the
type S[uint] (where struct S { uint count; float distance; }) does work.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3709] Associative array of associative arrays gets confused
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3709 Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||llu...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-01-15 15:23:58 PST --- You have a typo in the example code, right? in[int][int] a; should be int[int][int] a;? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 856] foreach doesn't work when accessing elements as supertypes
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=856 Alexey Ivanov aifg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||aifg...@gmail.com Resolution||WORKSFORME --- Comment #1 from Alexey Ivanov aifg...@gmail.com 2010-01-15 17:02:56 PST --- Works in dmd 1.055 and dmd 2.039 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3710] New: Typo in allMembers description?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3710 Summary: Typo in allMembers description? Product: D Version: 2.038 Platform: All URL: http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/traits.html#TraitsExpress ion OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P2 Component: www.digitalmars.com AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com ReportedBy: jlqu...@optonline.net --- Comment #0 from Jerry Quinn jlqu...@optonline.net 2010-01-15 22:15:08 PST --- The description has the following sentence. The piece in the parentheses appears to be reversed: An array of string literals is returned, each of which is the name of a member of that type combined with all of the members of the base classes (if the class is a type). It should probably read: (if the type is a class) -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 3711] New: Ddoc does not generate nothing if std.stdio is imported
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3711
Summary: Ddoc does not generate nothing if std.stdio is
imported
Product: D
Version: 2.038
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nob...@puremagic.com
ReportedBy: curo...@yahoo.com
--- Comment #0 from Igor Lesik curo...@yahoo.com 2010-01-15 23:30:52 PST ---
Steps to Reproduce:
Create file ddoc_bug1.d:
1 /// comment out the line below to see this 2.039
2 import std.stdio;
3 void main(){}
call dmd -D ddoc_bug1.d
Result:
body is empty in the generated html file.
htmlhead
...
h1ddoc_bug1/h1
!-- Generated by Ddoc from ddoc_bug1.d --
brbr
hrsmallPage generated by a
...
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
