http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11206
--- Comment #7 from Kenji Hara <k.hara...@gmail.com> 2013-10-09 21:54:03 PDT ---
The inconsistency comes from the incomplete fix of bug 7019.
struct Agg(T) { T val; }
void main()
{
int[3] sa = 1; // 1a, OK
auto agg1 = Agg!(int[3])(1); // 1b, OK
struct S { this(int) {} }
S s = 1; // 2a, OK, by fixing issue 7019
auto agg2 = Agg!S(1); // 2b
}
Since long time ago, 1a and 1b has been allowed.
On the other hand, from 2.061, 2a has formally become a part of the language
spec, by fixing issue 7019.
However, currently 2b is still disallowed.
Because, when I had wrote a compiler patch for bug 7019, I had thought that
accepting it might cause some ambiguity on multi-dimentional array
initializing.
struct S { this(int) {} }
S[2][2] sa = [1, 2];
// exactly same as:
// sa = [[S(1), S(2)], [S(1), S(2)]]
// or: sa = [[S(1), S(1)], [S(2), S(2)]]
// ?
But recently, I found a new consistent rule to resolve the ambiguity. Based on
the rule in my brain, the 2b case would also be accepted.
Therefore, the current inconsistency is a bug to me. If T t = val; is accepted,
the struct literal syntax Aggr!T(val) should also be accepted.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
