[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Issue 2573 depends on issue 1983, which changed state. Issue 1983 Summary: Delegates violate const https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1983 What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Issue 2573 depends on issue 1983, which changed state. Issue 1983 Summary: Delegates violate const https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1983 What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED |--- --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Issue 2573 depends on issue 1983, which changed state. Issue 1983 Summary: Delegates violate const https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1983 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 RazvanN changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED CC||razvan.nitu1...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |LATER --- Comment #7 from RazvanN --- Most of the issues have been fixed and nobody updates this tracker anymore. Closing. --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Issue 2573 depends on issue 2270, which changed state. Issue 2270 Summary: cast produces invalid arrays at runtime https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2270 What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WORKSFORME |--- --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Issue 2573 depends on issue 2270, which changed state. Issue 2270 Summary: cast produces invalid arrays at runtime https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2270 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Issue 2573 depends on issue 8944, which changed state. Issue 8944 Summary: Loosing const from shared const type when unqualifying in foreach over tuple https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8944 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Issue 2573 depends on issue 3395, which changed state. Issue 3395 Summary: Ambiguous array operations https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3395 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Issue 2573 depends on issue 8885, which changed state. Issue 8885 Summary: Passing super class' private method as delegate allowed https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8885 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Issue 2573 depends on issue 1161, which changed state. Issue 1161 Summary: [module] Access to private static members is allowed from other module. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1161 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unspecified |D2 --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Issue 2573 depends on issue 602, which changed state. Issue 602 Summary: Compiler allows a goto statement to skip an initalization https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=602 What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Issue 2573 depends on issue 8999, which changed state. Issue 8999 Summary: Closure not detected for reference paramters of templated functions https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8999 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Issue 2573 depends on issue 602, which changed state. Issue 602 Summary: Compiler allows a goto statement to skip an initalization https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=602 What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED |--- --
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | --- Comment #6 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2013-03-06 05:20:21 PST --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) Where is the keyword for data integrity issues? There isn't, it covers too many disparate things to be a helpful category. In your opinion. It has a very large overlap with wrong-code. How do you work that out? Still, it's only the opinion of a few people. OK, so there are probably more whom we don't know about. But clearly many people find them useful for various reasons. The commonness of them on b.m.o is evidence of this. Nobody fixing D bugs has found them useful AFAIK. BTW this is the almost the only remaining umbrella bug in the D bugzilla. What has usefulness to a specific minority of users to do with anything? The fact remains that some people find trackers useful. How does a collection of data integrity bugs constitute a personal gripe list??? To quote the bug description: the point is to show how we have a D that isn't as robust against data corruption as it's cracked up to be. Very similar to your old pending peeves list. That's fine for a wiki, but doesn't belong in Bugzilla. It doesn't contribute to getting anything fixed. You haven't answered the question at all. How does a D that isn't as robust against data corruption as it's cracked up to be equate to a D that isn't to some random individual's liking? In any case, the fact remains that we need more people's opinions before deciding what to do with this issue. I'll start a discussion on the newsgroup about it when I've a bit more time (hopefully this evening). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 --- Comment #5 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2013-03-05 02:12:54 PST --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) Keywords are fully maintained (beyond the point of creation) on the bugs that utilize that keyword. Where is the keyword for data integrity issues? There isn't, it covers too many disparate things to be a helpful category. It has a very large overlap with wrong-code. Still, it's only the opinion of a few people. OK, so there are probably more whom we don't know about. But clearly many people find them useful for various reasons. The commonness of them on b.m.o is evidence of this. Nobody fixing D bugs has found them useful AFAIK. BTW this is the almost the only remaining umbrella bug in the D bugzilla. And this one isn't even an umbrella bug, it's a personal gripe list. How does a collection of data integrity bugs constitute a personal gripe list??? To quote the bug description: the point is to show how we have a D that isn't as robust against data corruption as it's cracked up to be. Very similar to your old pending peeves list. That's fine for a wiki, but doesn't belong in Bugzilla. It doesn't contribute to getting anything fixed. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #3 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2013-03-04 04:33:47 PST --- There was a discussion back then about having trackers here, and there was no objection. If some authority has banned them since, please point me to the statement. Walter Bright to d-runtime, 8 Feb On 2/7/2013 5:22 PM, Brad Roberts wrote: Keywords are fully maintained (beyond the point of creation) on the bugs that utilize that keyword. When there's no open bugs in that category, there's no bugs with the keyword. Unlike umbrella bugs which would end up being closed and reopened as bugs are found. There's no clear 'done' with umbrella bugs. See 1001, the stack trace bug, for a classic case of where they're an anti-pattern. I agree with Brad. Umbrella bugs seem like a great idea, until you use them. And this one isn't even an umbrella bug, it's a personal gripe list. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 --- Comment #4 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2013-03-04 05:40:47 PST --- (In reply to comment #3) Keywords are fully maintained (beyond the point of creation) on the bugs that utilize that keyword. Where is the keyword for data integrity issues? When there's no open bugs in that category, there's no bugs with the keyword. Unlike umbrella bugs which would end up being closed and reopened as bugs are found. There's no clear 'done' with umbrella bugs. See 1001, the stack trace bug, for a classic case of where they're an anti-pattern. That's true, and in principle keywords could mostly replace tracker issues. In practice, they need to be created by someone who has the necessary access to do so. It might be easier to get a keyword created on a small Bugzilla like this one compared to a big one like bugzilla.mozilla.org, but still I agree with Brad. Umbrella bugs seem like a great idea, until you use them. Still, it's only the opinion of a few people. OK, so there are probably more whom we don't know about. But clearly many people find them useful for various reasons. The commonness of them on b.m.o is evidence of this. And this one isn't even an umbrella bug, it's a personal gripe list. How does a collection of data integrity bugs constitute a personal gripe list??? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID --- Comment #1 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2013-02-08 00:43:01 PST --- Closing this because it adds no value. The bugs in this list bear no relation to one another, and this bug report doesn't help in getting them fixed. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 2573] [Tracker] Data integrity issues
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2573 Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | --- Comment #2 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2013-02-08 04:38:28 PST --- It isn't supposed to help get them fixed. It's supposed to see how we're doing towards having a D language/compiler that's robust against data corruption. There was a discussion back then about having trackers here, and there was no objection. If some authority has banned them since, please point me to the statement. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
