https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #89 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com ---
To clarify: this issue is preapproved and is waiting for an implementation.
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #87 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2013-01-10 00:41:57 PST ---
(In reply to comment #85)
I've had the opportunity to discuss the matter with Bertrand Meyer himself and
with a graduate student of his. Bertrand didn't have a
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #88 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com 2013-01-10
09:14:02 PST ---
@Walter: would you preapprove this?
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #86 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2012-09-05
07:27:40 PDT ---
Forgot to mention - I attached the relevant page from the book (Walter found
it) that makes it as clear as it gets how inherited preconditions should
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #85 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2012-09-05
07:26:07 PDT ---
I've had the opportunity to discuss the matter with Bertrand Meyer himself and
with a graduate student of his. Bertrand didn't have a defined answer
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #81 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-07-10 05:05:48 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #80)
(In reply to comment #79)
- we have variadics that are really just C's variadics with
typeinfo added
We also have C's variadics.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #83 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-07-10 15:47:32 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #82)
(In reply to comment #81)
But no use case I can see for using a C-style variadic for a D class method.
I dunno, maybe you want to pass
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #76 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2012-07-10 02:54:06 EST ---
(In reply to comment #55)
Unfortunately, I do not currently see a reasonable way of implementing this.
Fortunately, as is it does not inhibit correct programs, it
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #77 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-07-09 11:12:52 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #76)
I can't see any way to do it without changing the abi for virtual functions
with contracts.
What about my suggestion of comment 61?
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yebbl...@gmail.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #79 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-07-09 15:22:23 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #78)
As Walter said, that requires argument forwarding, which introduces copying
problems and doesn't work with variadics.
I thought I'd
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #80 from yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com 2012-07-10 14:02:54 EST ---
(In reply to comment #79)
(In reply to comment #78)
But it does seem to be down to two problems with D's design:
- structs aren't guaranteed to be safe to just
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
David Piepgrass qwertie...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #71 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-07-08 14:50:57 PDT ---
The error is in the fact that addAll isn't aware of B.
You can solve that easily with metaprograming, or by overloading addAll for B.
--
Configure issuemail:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #72 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-07-08 14:58:07 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #70)
I must say, I would be entirely opposed to fixing this bug. As far as I can
see, the arguments of Timon and deadalnix have been entirely theoretical,
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #73 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-07-08 15:08:47 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #70)
P.S. Besides which, the implementation difficulties mentioned by Walter in
comment 58 are really big difficulties, that don't seem worth it for
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #74 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-07-08 15:59:47 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #72)
(In reply to comment #70)
// BTW I wanted to use an interface here, but I get
// missing body { ... } after in or out
// and then if I
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #75 from David Piepgrass qwertie...@gmail.com 2012-07-08 17:05:28
PDT ---
I must say, I would be entirely opposed to fixing this bug. As far as I
can
see, the arguments of Timon and deadalnix have been entirely theoretical,
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #61 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-07 03:58:47 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #58)
It's not that simple. Several considerations have to be met:
1. Because of struct construction/destruction, you really only
want to
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #62 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-05-07 04:43:25 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #60)
This has been some significant pwning of Walter and myself, and I think there
is a larger lesson here we should learn.
Quoting
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #63 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-07
08:29:21 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #61)
(In reply to comment #58)
It's not that simple. Several considerations have to be met:
1. Because of struct
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #64 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-05-07 09:00:05 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #63)
Again, you're pushing the parameters on the stack twice - and this won't work
for variadic functions.
Why not jump in the function
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #65 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-07
09:36:56 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #64)
Why not jump in the function directly after the prolog and not push arguments
twice on the stack ?
Not so easy given how back
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #66 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-07 10:32:33 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #63)
Can't this be solved by simply making all struct parameters to the in/out
functions ref?
Losing all C ABI compatiblity in the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #67 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-07 10:48:26 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #62)
Changing how the language work must be done only if strong arguments are made.
Unless I've missed something, the language leaves this
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #68 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-07
12:17:19 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #66)
(In reply to comment #63)
Can't this be solved by simply making all struct parameters to the in/out
functions ref?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #69 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-07 12:26:47 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #68)
1. pass by ref is semantically very different from pass by value. It is
necessary to support both.
The function that implements a
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #56 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2012-05-06 00:36:04 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #55)
Mea culpa.
I read Meyer's book again. Chapter 16.1 Cutting out the middleman pg. 575
says:
A client of MATRIX must satisfy the original
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #57 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-05-06 02:20:47 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #55)
So I'm reopening it as a normal bug.
Thank you !
Unfortunately, I do not currently see a reasonable way of implementing this.
On 5/6/2012 2:19 AM, d-bugm...@puremagic.com wrote:
That is not this complicated. you need a final function that check the in
contract, then call another virtual function that actually execute the function
body and the out contract.
With such a configuration, the in contract is checked and only
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #59 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-05-06 03:27:45 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #58)
It's not that simple. Several considerations have to be met:
1. Because of struct construction/destruction, you really only want to
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #60 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2012-05-06
19:48:55 PDT ---
This has been some significant pwning of Walter and myself, and I think there
is a larger lesson here we should learn.
We essentially operated from
On Saturday, 5 May 2012 at 05:57:31 UTC, Don wrote:
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
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #47 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-05
02:02:48 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #46)
Now, change F from a struct to a class. We believe that the code should still
fail to compile.
A theorem prover could not
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #47 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-05
02:02:48 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #46)
Now, change F from a struct to a class. We believe that the code should still
fail to compile.
A theorem prover could not
Please reply on bugzilla, replying here is most likely to be overlooked.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #49 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-05 04:40:48 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #47)
(In reply to comment #46)
Now, change F from a struct to a class. We believe that the code should
still
fail to compile.
A
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #50 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-05-05 05:04:07 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #33)
(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
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #51 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-05-05 06:22:21 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #49)
Runtime polymorphism is about overriding behaviour, not overriding legality.
This is, indeed, the whole essence of the problem.
(In
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #52 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2012-05-05
08:54:17 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #51)
I'm sorry, but this reading can't close the discussion.
I think it does. The proposed behavior does not allow this:
None
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #53 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-05-05 08:58:21 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #52)
(In reply to comment #51)
I'm sorry, but this reading can't close the discussion.
I think it does. The proposed behavior does not
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #54 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-05 09:21:02 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #52)
Doing a better job is succeeding where the parent method would have failed its
precondition. It all boils down to the fact that it's
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #12 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-05-03 01:43:42 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
The current specification is flawed. It have nothing to do with how
inheritance work (and I could assure you I know what I'm talking
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #13 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2012-05-03
07:05:18 PDT ---
I apologize but I still think the confusion goes the other way. A good way to
arbiter this is to peruse the literature on the subject, as Walter
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #14 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-05-03 10:45:19 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
I apologize but I still think the confusion goes the other way. A good way to
arbiter this is to peruse the literature on the subject, as
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #15 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-03
11:07:27 PDT ---
fizbuzzA(A a) {
a.foo(); // A.foo's in contract is valid
}
If an instance of B is passed to fizbuzzA, then the a.foo() will call B.foo(),
and either
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #16 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2012-05-03 11:56:47 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #15)
fizbuzzA(A a) {
a.foo(); // A.foo's in contract is valid
}
If an instance of B is passed to fizbuzzA, then the a.foo() will call
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #17 from deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com 2012-05-03 13:44:36 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #15)
fizbuzzA(A a) {
a.foo(); // A.foo's in contract is valid
}
If an instance of B is passed to fizbuzzA, then the a.foo() will call
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #18 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-03
15:37:00 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
As you can see in given code, fizbuzzA is an invalid piece of code waiting to
explode in your face.
There is no bug in example
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #19 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-03
15:46:03 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #16)
This is the issue. WHY are they done based on the virtual type?
Checking the contracts based on static typing would detect
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@iname.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #23 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-03 18:21:44 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #22)
If you mean whether a given call is legal, then you could by the
same argument insist that called method names must be resolved in
the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #24 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-03
18:50:03 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #23)
(In reply to comment #22)
If you mean whether a given call is legal, then you could by the
same argument insist that called
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #25 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-05-03 19:02:13 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #24)
No, I'm not. This thread is about overriding, not introducing, functions.
It's about introducing new legal inputs to a function. Which
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
timon.g...@gmx.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
timon.g...@gmx.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX
--- Comment #8 from
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #10 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2012-05-02
16:27:15 PDT ---
I suggest checking Bertrand Meyer's book Object-Oriented Software Construction,
which is the definitive reference on this. It's theoretically sound. I did
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
--- Comment #3 from jens.k.muel...@gmx.de 2012-03-02 00:35:52 PST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
Can you elaborate why the static type must be considered? What's the problem
with using the dynamic type?
The
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
jens.k.muel...@gmx.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jens.k.muel...@gmx.de
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6857
deadalnix deadal...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||deadal...@gmail.com
87 matches
Mail list logo
