http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7046
--- Comment #6 from Adam D. Ruppe <destructiona...@gmail.com> 2011-12-02 07:47:17 PST --- (In reply to comment #2) > I mean a null could mean a null string[], not a null string. I oversimplified the test - in the original code it came from, it was more like string a = null; ret ~= a; which gets the same result in 2.056 I haven't tried git though. I'm not sure how to use that yet! > I almost think the code in question should fail to compile for being too > ambiguous. With null itself... maybe. In the case of string[], ~= null could have two meanings, but one of them is pretty obviously a no-op, so it's probably not what you meant. If a variable happens to be null, maybe doing nothing is what you wanted, but in that case, the variable has an exact type declared so it's not ambiguous anymore. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------