[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2017-02-05 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 anonymous4 changed: What|Removed |Added See Also|

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2015-06-08 Thread via Digitalmars-d-bugs
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|2.012 |D2 --

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2011-11-24 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2011-11-24 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #33 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2011-11-24 10:25:14 PST --- Terrific! -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2011-06-11 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch CC|

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-27 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-27 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #26 from Jason House jason.james.ho...@gmail.com 2010-11-27 06:24:58 PST --- If derived[] is implicitly converted to const(base)[], what happens when I append another bade object to the array? Should it implicitly convert to

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-27 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #27 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2010-11-27 06:32:03 PST --- (In reply to comment #26) If derived[] is implicitly converted to const(base)[], what happens when I append another bade object to the array? Should

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-27 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #28 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2010-11-27 10:10:58 PST --- (In reply to comment #27) (In reply to comment #26) If derived[] is implicitly converted to const(base)[], what happens when I append another

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-27 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #29 from Jason House jason.james.ho...@gmail.com 2010-11-27 12:08:04 PST --- Doesn't the following make x an lvalue? const(base)[] x = derived_array; -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-27 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #30 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2010-11-27 12:20:15 PST --- (In reply to comment #29) Doesn't the following make x an lvalue? const(base)[] x = derived_array; It does ... but appending to x won't alter derived_array.

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-21 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #24 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2010-11-21 17:26:38 PST --- (In reply to comment #23) ? extends A[] Interesting. This type implies array is mutable, so you can put objects into it. No, because you don't know which

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-20 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #23 from Sobirari Muhomori dfj1es...@sneakemail.com 2010-11-20 14:30:34 PST --- ? extends A[] Interesting. This type implies array is mutable, so you can put objects into it. Java will check at runtime for array type, but in D

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-19 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #21 from Bruno Medeiros bdom.pub+deeb...@gmail.com 2010-11-19 15:29:24 PST --- (In reply to comment #20) (In reply to comment #19) Classes are not like arrays and pointers. These are supposed to be lightweight data types,

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-19 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #22 from Bruno Medeiros bdom.pub+deeb...@gmail.com 2010-11-19 15:31:03 PST --- Yes, like I mentioned, Steven's solution has some limitations. I meant Stewart (Gordon), not Steven. -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-18 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #19 from Bruno Medeiros bdom.pub+deeb...@gmail.com 2010-11-18 11:10:49 PST --- I've looked at Stewart Gordon's proposal, and I agree that they are safe and sound (although it may need to be more detailed or cleaned-up a bit). I

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-18 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #20 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-11-18 12:38:47 PST --- (In reply to comment #19) Classes are not like arrays and pointers. These are supposed to be lightweight data types, it's out of place for D to have that extra runtime

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-17 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #15 from Bruno Medeiros bdom.pub+deeb...@gmail.com 2010-11-17 12:24:40 PST --- For the record, the same problem also occurs with pointer types: B* ba=[new B()].ptr; A* aa=ba; *aa=new A; (*ba).methodB(); // (*ba) is

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-17 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #16 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-11-17 15:13:10 PST --- (In reply to comment #14) I'm afraid, there's nothing to test at runtime, Some runtime data info may be added, then. There is already some of it for classes and modules.

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-17 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-17 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #18 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2010-11-17 16:57:33 PST --- (In reply to comment #17) Really, the only question is whether you can get away with it with some form of const, and I believe that the consensus on it in the

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-16 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #13 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-11-16 17:04:34 PST --- Something about this topic: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2007/10/17/covariance-and-contravariance-in-c-part-two-array-covariance.aspx This is is an

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-11-16 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #14 from Sobirari Muhomori dfj1es...@sneakemail.com 2010-11-16 21:55:25 PST --- (In reply to comment #11) I think in this case runtime tests in nonrelease builds are better than nothing. I'm afraid, there's nothing to test at

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-09-29 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #12 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2010-09-29 02:47:57 PDT --- (In reply to comment #11) I think in this case runtime tests in nonrelease builds are better than nothing. In what case? And what would these runtime tests do?

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-09-28 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc ---

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2010-03-16 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

Re: [Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2009-05-27 Thread bradpiit
There is nothing called a free lunch is this world. If things needed to be resolved then initiative needs a support to be sorted out. a href=http://mls.fastrealestate.netmls/a

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2009-02-24 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #9 from ma...@pochta.ru 2009-02-24 03:24 --- This turned out to be well-known. Bug 926. In NG: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/17039.html --

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2009-02-19 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #7 from ma...@pochta.ru 2009-02-19 03:01 --- isn't this bug 2093? --

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2009-02-19 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 --- Comment #8 from ma...@pochta.ru 2009-02-19 03:09 --- int[] x=[1,2]; x.length=1; int[] y=x; x~=3; // x=[1,3] y~=4; // x=[1,4] bug 2093 has little to do with covariance. Added as dependency. --

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2009-02-18 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 ma...@pochta.ru changed: What|Removed |Added CC||la...@virginia.edu --- Comment

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2009-02-18 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 ma...@pochta.ru changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||2573 nThis|

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2009-02-18 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 s...@iname.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||s...@iname.com --- Comment #4

[Issue 2095] covariance w/o typechecks = bugs

2009-02-18 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095 jason.james.ho...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|