[Issue 4699] New: Functions in peer scopes cannot have the same name

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4699 Summary: Functions in peer scopes cannot have the same name Product: D Version: D2 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2

[Issue 4692] Cyclic import breaks is() in a static if in a struct

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4692 Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||r.sagita...@gmx.de

[Issue 4302] Regression(2.046, 1.061): compiler errors using startsWith in CTFE

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4302 --- Comment #4 from Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de 2010-08-21 00:49:23 PDT --- (In reply to comment #3) The cause of the regression was this line at the end of TemplateInstance::semantic() around line 3980: if (global.gag)

[Issue 4302] Regression(2.046, 1.061): compiler errors using startsWith in CTFE

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4302 --- Comment #5 from Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de 2010-08-21 01:20:14 PDT --- Or maybe even simpler: it's probably not necessary to add the template as a member to the module if it is instantiated in a static if or similar. -- Configure

[Issue 4700] New: to!float(0) fails

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4700 Summary: to!float(0) fails Product: D Version: D2 Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Phobos

[Issue 4693] std.range.iota fails with long type

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4693 Max Klyga necrom...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 4701] New: Should returning a value in a void function be downgraded to a warning?

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4701 Summary: Should returning a value in a void function be downgraded to a warning? Product: D Version: D1 D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW

[Issue 4701] Should returning a value in a void function be downgraded to a warning?

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4701 Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 4701] Should returning a value in a void function be downgraded to a warning?

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4701 --- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2010-08-21 04:29:24 PDT --- (In reply to comment #1) 1. Walter hates warnings. He pretty much thinks that everything should either be an error or not. So, you're generally going to have a

[Issue 4701] Should returning a value in a void function be downgraded to a warning?

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4701 --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com 2010-08-21 04:36:46 PDT --- (In reply to comment #2) I still think this should be a diagnostic bug though, as the error message does not relate in any way to what the programmer is trying

[Issue 4701] Should returning a value in a void function be downgraded to a warning?

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4701 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc ---

[Issue 4701] Should returning a value in a void function be downgraded to a warning?

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4701 Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 3922] Wrong error message with return in void function

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3922 Iain Buclaw ibuc...@ubuntu.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuc...@ubuntu.com

[Issue 3922] Wrong error message with return in void function

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3922 --- Comment #3 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-08-21 05:09:39 PDT --- Those error messages I have suggested are wrong, because using return in a void function is OK: void foo() { return; } void main() {} It seems that this too is

[Issue 4700] to!float(0) fails

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4700 Stephan Dilly s...@extrawurst.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||s...@extrawurst.org

[Issue 4702] New: Long Postfix not working with cross-module overloading

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4702 Summary: Long Postfix not working with cross-module overloading Product: D Version: D2 Platform: Other OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority:

[Issue 4703] New: Ambiguously designed array syntax

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4703 Summary: Ambiguously designed array syntax Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD

[Issue 4704] New: Problems with aa.byValue()

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4704 Summary: Problems with aa.byValue() Product: D Version: D2 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Phobos

[Issue 4703] Ambiguously designed array syntax

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4703 David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dsim...@yahoo.com ---

[Issue 4703] Ambiguously designed array syntax

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4703 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nfx...@gmail.com --- Comment #2

[Issue 4705] New: Redesign of std.algorithm.max()/min() + mins()/maxs()

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4705 Summary: Redesign of std.algorithm.max()/min() + mins()/maxs() Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2

[Issue 4706] New: Overloading auto return w/ non-auto return = strange error msg

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4706 Summary: Overloading auto return w/ non-auto return = strange error msg Product: D Version: D2 Platform: Other OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Keywords:

[Issue 4703] Ambiguously designed array syntax

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4703 --- Comment #3 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2010-08-21 12:51:30 PDT --- I think, then, that we should just get rid of the static initialization of static arrays thing. I've been using D on a daily basis for ~2.5 years and I didn't know

[Issue 4703] Ambiguously designed array syntax

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4703 --- Comment #4 from nfx...@gmail.com 2010-08-21 13:04:06 PDT --- This ferature is in C99, with different syntax. Example from the GCC docs: int a[6] = { [4] = 29, [2] = 15 }; It's very useful. D's inability to initialize anything else than

[Issue 4703] Ambiguously designed array syntax

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4703 --- Comment #5 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-08-21 13:36:39 PDT --- I agree that this syntax is not very useful, and it may be considered for removal: int[] dict = [1:2, 3:4, 5:6]; This ferature is in C99, with different syntax. [...]

[Issue 3827] automatic joining of adjacent strings is bad

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3827 --- Comment #8 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-08-21 13:38:59 PDT --- A particularly nice example of why untidy syntax easily leads to bugs (this comes from two different sources of sloppiness of the D2 language): enum string[5] data =

[Issue 4688] [patch] rdmd/Win: rdmd'ed program's output appears after cmd prompt

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4688 Nick Sabalausky cbkbbej...@mailinator.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #734 is|0 |1

[Issue 4691] Incorrect comparison of double and long

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4691 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 4703] Ambiguously designed array syntax

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4703 Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||llu...@gmail.com

[Issue 4703] Ambiguously designed array syntax

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4703 Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 4700] to!float(0) fails

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4700 David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 4707] New: auto ref for foreach loops

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4707 Summary: auto ref for foreach loops Product: D Version: D2 Platform: Other OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component:

[Issue 4264] Various std.algorithm.map problems

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4264 David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dsim...@yahoo.com ---

[Issue 4264] Support opApply in std.algorithm, std.range where possible

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4264 David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||2443, 4707

[Issue 4707] auto ref for foreach loops

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4707 nfx...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nfx...@gmail.com --- Comment #1

[Issue 4707] auto ref for foreach loops

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4707 --- Comment #2 from David Simcha dsim...@yahoo.com 2010-08-21 20:49:02 PDT --- Because if the range didn't support ref iteration, the foreach loop would work with non-ref iteration rather than producing a compile time error.(In reply to comment

[Issue 4703] Ambiguously designed array syntax

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4703 --- Comment #8 from Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com 2010-08-21 22:05:28 PDT --- (In reply to comment #7) (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #2) Look on http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/arrays.html section Static