[Issue 7184] parse error on *(x)++
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7184 Dlang Bot changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull --- Comment #13 from Dlang Bot --- @ntrel created dlang/dmd pull request #15410 "Fix Issue 7184 - parse error on *(x)++" fixing this issue: - Fix Issue 7184 - parse error on *(x)++ https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/15410 --
[Issue 23973] static constructors should have to be nothrow
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23973 Jonathan M Davis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||issues.dl...@jmdavisprog.co ||m --- Comment #4 from Jonathan M Davis --- (In reply to RazvanN from comment #2) > Would make sense to apply the same constraints for static destructors? > Actually, I think that that would make sense for constructors and > destructors in general. Constructors in general are a very different issue from static constructors. Throwing from constructors on types is an extremely normal thing to do. Without that, you're often forced to do two step initialization in order to be able to tell the caller that the arguments are invalid. Disallowing throwing from normal constructors would very much be an anti-pattern. It _might_ make sense to require that destructors on types be nothrow, but I'm not sure. C++ went and made noexcept the default for destructors, and their standard library doesn't allow destructors to throw exceptions, but IIRC, some projects actually do it. So, as I understand it, the C++ community considers it something that should generally be avoided but not necessarily something that should absolutely never be done. So, I think that we'd have to look at the situation very carefully before disallowing it in D. Regardless, the question of static constructors and destructors and nothrow is very different from non-static ones, and the issues that Atila brought up with static constructors do not apply to regular constructors at all outside of them being called from static constructors - and those issues then apply to any code that would throw an exception from within a static constructor. --
[Issue 24046] static destructors should be allowed in function bodies
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24046 Max Samukha changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maxsamu...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Max Samukha --- While I agree that function-local static constructors/destructors should just work, you can work around this bug by wrapping the destructor in a struct. --
[Issue 24046] New: static destructors should be allowed in function bodies
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24046
Issue ID: 24046
Summary: static destructors should be allowed in function
bodies
Product: D
Version: D2
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
Component: dmd
Assignee: nob...@puremagic.com
Reporter: b2.t...@gmx.com
Here is why : as we can hide static variables in function bodies there should
be a way to cleanup them.
A way to do that would be to allow local static destructors, for example
```d
struct S { }
S getS()
{
static S result;
static ~this() // run when the program finishes
{
destroy(result);
}
return result ? result : (result = new S);
}
```
--
[Issue 18609] `is` expression identifier accessible outside `static if`
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18609 Nick Treleaven changed: What|Removed |Added CC||destructiona...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Nick Treleaven --- *** Issue 21078 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** --
[Issue 21078] static if(is(T IDENT)) introduces IDENT beyond static if's scpe
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21078 Nick Treleaven changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #5 from Nick Treleaven --- *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 18609 *** --
[Issue 24045] New: Compiler fails to recognize overlapping Union elements in CTFE
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24045
Issue ID: 24045
Summary: Compiler fails to recognize overlapping Union elements
in CTFE
Product: D
Version: D2
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P1
Component: dmd
Assignee: nob...@puremagic.com
Reporter: pun...@coverify.org
enum bool bar = foo(42);
bool foo(ubyte c) {
union U {
uint a;
ubyte[4] b;
}
U u;
u.b[0] = c;
assert (u.a == c, "This should never happen");
return true;
}
--
[Issue 23279] Segmentation fault on mixin template + using unknown type
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23279 --- Comment #7 from Dlang Bot --- @RazvanN7 updated dlang/dmd pull request #15406 "Fix Issue 23951 - traits(getMember) does not follow alias this" fixing this issue: - Fix Issue 23279 - ICE when using traits(hasMember) with an erroneous member https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/15406 --
[Issue 24041] Anon enum member ignores repeated type or identifier
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24041 Dlang Bot changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #3 from Dlang Bot --- dlang/dmd pull request #15392 "Fix several errors parsing enum members" was merged into master: - 9be3f393fdbf2f6ed25aefeb24f66349763e4fbd by Nick Treleaven: Fix Issue 24041 - Anon enum member ignores repeated type or identifier Also adds test for missing initializer when type is specified and tweaks that error. https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/15392 --
[Issue 24044] Support float opCmp(...) with array
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24044 Dlang Bot changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #2 from Dlang Bot --- dlang/dmd pull request #15407 "Fix 24044 - Support float opCmp(...) with array" was merged into master: - 6b026900c89d3fc936af71b77609333c7b7397ac by Dennis Korpel: Fix 24044 - Support float opCmp(...) with array https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/15407 --
