http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690
Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690
--- Comment #9 from Tomas Lindquist Olsen to...@famolsen.dk 2009-06-08
03:10:48 PDT ---
I'm not sure about the interface differences anymore, I think they might be
fixed in DMD, in any case we didn't change the frontend code, just the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690
Brad Roberts bra...@puremagic.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bra...@puremagic.com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690
--- Comment #7 from bugzi...@digitalmars.com 2009-03-12 03:57 ---
What issues does DMD still have with interfaces? Did you fix the dmd source?
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690
--- Comment #6 from jlqu...@optonline.net 2009-03-11 23:45 ---
I would argue that associative arrays need more definition than pointer to
opaque type. If a compiler compiles a source file with an assoc array, and
another compiler
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690
--- Comment #3 from s...@iname.com 2009-03-01 08:21 ---
On a quick look, I've found one thing that's puzzling me. In the ABI for
interfaces, where does the object pointer itself come in?
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=690
to...@famolsen.dk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from
