http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5570
Leandro Lucarella <leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |http://d.puremagic.com/issu
| |es/show_bug.cgi?id=6772
--- Comment #12 from Leandro Lucarella <leandro.lucare...@sociomantic.com>
2012-04-16 03:27:08 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> In general, something which has never worked is going to be treated as less of
> a priority than something which worked before and doesn't now - _especially_
> when it's part of a newer feature.
Yeah, and you know that something that worked before and doesn't work now is
exactly what's called a *regression*, which have higher priority than
*blocker*.
So we all agree on that :)
> And this has _never_ worked correctly. And I
> don't know why you would think that a C ABI issue would be more important than
> an issue in D itself. As bad as this is, most D code is completely unaffected
> by this. It's only once you start dealing with C and structs that it matters.
And that is a lot of codebase, you know? For example wxD, as Damian Ziemba
pointed out can't work without this fixed. Also, and probably much less
important than wxD, is making life at the company I work a little miserable
trying to migrate to 64bit with this bug around. AFAIK Walter cares about big
projects as wxD and making D usable for companies to consider this bug a
blocker when it really blocks that kind of uses.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
