http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2716
Christian Kamm <kamm-removet...@incasoftware.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kamm-removet...@incasoftwar
| |e.de
--- Comment #8 from Christian Kamm <kamm-removet...@incasoftware.de>
2009-07-13 09:41:53 PDT ---
> "storage class has no effect" seems to be the wrong wording.
I'll change it if you come up with a nicer error message. "cannot be auto"
would've been consistent with other error messages of this kind, but I thought
the "has no effect" one was nicer.
> Firstly, it'll be a case of doesn't make sense rather than has no effect;
> secondly, this is making it not a storage class at all.
That's arguable. My reasoning was that as a do-nothing storage class, auto
makes sense everywhere. Its only 'effect' is to allow type inference in the
absence of another storage class.
> Moreover, should we get rid of it straight off, or deprecate it first?
I would've if it had ever been in the D1 spec, but as far as I remember it's
around purely as a holdover from pre-D1.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
