http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7582
Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7471
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry Olshansky dmitry.o...@gmail.com 2012-02-26
02:22:02 PST ---
Profiling shows that about 99% of time is spent in GC, ouch.
What's at work here is that new regex engine is more costly to create and
allocates a bunch of
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7525
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||pull, rejects-valid
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7589
Summary: __traits(compiles) does not work with a template that
fails to compile
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7563
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||pull, rejects-valid
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7584
deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||deadal...@gmail.com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856
deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||deadal...@gmail.com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7584
--- Comment #2 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-02-26 05:03:25 PST ---
Again, give an example. Your claim is not true.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856
--- Comment #15 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-02-26 05:11:34 PST ---
There is no B's in. That is the point. The bug is that an implicit 'in'
contract that always passes is added to B.foo.
--
Configure issuemail:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7471
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry Olshansky dmitry.o...@gmail.com 2012-02-26
06:32:30 PST ---
Anyway how compares of 2.056-2.058 when you don't create regex objects inside
tight loop?
It is a strange thing to do at any circumstances, even N-slot
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7585
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||pull, rejects-valid
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856
--- Comment #16 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-02-26 07:43:52 PST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
There is no B's in. That is the point. The bug is that an implicit 'in'
contract that always passes is added to B.foo.
Yes that is the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7590
--- Comment #2 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2012-02-26 07:57:46 PST ---
D parser simply ignores almost of unnecessary last comma in list like follows.
enum E { A = 0, B, C, } // last comma is ignored
void func(int x, int y, ){} //
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7592
Summary: Conversion from ireal to ifloat broken when using xmm
Product: D
Version: D1 D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: major
Priority: P2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7593
Summary: cfloat to cdouble conversion is broken when using xmm
Product: D
Version: D1 D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Keywords: wrong-code
Severity:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7554
--- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2012-02-26 08:23:38 PST ---
I think making inner() pure isn't necessary.
Following raises no error and works as expected.
T outer(T)(T function(in T) pure foo) pure {
int inner() {
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7500
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice, pull
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7584
--- Comment #5 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-02-26 08:28:57 PST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
LSP is not violated. That is the point. The rules proposed here are sufficient
to guarantee LSP. The rules that are currently employed are
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856
--- Comment #17 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-02-26 08:30:09 PST ---
(In reply to comment #16)
(In reply to comment #15)
There is no B's in. That is the point. The bug is that an implicit 'in'
contract that always passes is added to B.foo.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5625
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unspecified |D1 D2
--- Comment #2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7581
--- Comment #2 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2012-02-27 03:37:39 EST ---
New pull
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/769
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7591
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||pull
--- Comment #1 from
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7592
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||pull, wrong-code
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7594
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||pull
--- Comment #1 from
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5304
kenn...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Platform|x86
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856
--- Comment #18 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-02-26 08:46:45 PST ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Don's proposal is to remove 'in' contract widening completely. That does not
make a lot of sense to me.
Don's proposal is similar to
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7590
Trass3r mrmoc...@gmx.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856
--- Comment #19 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-02-26 09:15:32 PST ---
(In reply to comment #17)
That assumption is bogus, because this is almost never the case.
It makes contract programming basically unusable. Such a strong
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856
--- Comment #20 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-02-26 10:30:17 PST ---
(In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #17)
That assumption is bogus, because this is almost never the case.
It makes contract programming basically unusable.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7554
--- Comment #2 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-02-26 10:58:27 PST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I think making inner() pure isn't necessary.
In this program I want inner() to be pure.
--
Configure issuemail:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5523
Dmitry Olshansky dmitry.o...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4814
d...@dawgfoto.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@dawgfoto.de
--- Comment #2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7595
Summary: Data being overwritten.
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: regression
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7595
Lukasz Wrzosek luk.wrzo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7596
Summary: traits compiles can't detect non-copyable errors
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3492
Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6856
Jesse Phillips jesse.k.phillip...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7502
Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3492
--- Comment #4 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-02-26
22:13:25 PST ---
The reason is straightforward - there's no point to it. Nested functions tend
to be right next to where they are used. They're not off in a separate file.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7084
--- Comment #3 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx 2012-02-26 22:22:24 PST ---
Here's a link to the relevant part of the Unicode standard for whoever wants to
implement normalization:
http://unicode.org/reports/tr15/
Note that there are several
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3492
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
42 matches
Mail list logo
