bearophile wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
No, I was simply wrong :) I think it's by design. Which means the
original bug report is valid.
The original bug report is valid, but I don't understand that code still. Is
the const implying a static only in some situations?
Why is this OK for the compiler:
struct Foo {
const Foo f = Foo();
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
void main() {}
While this is not OK for the compiler?
struct Foo {
const Foo f;
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 1);
void main() {}
Bye,
bearophile
In D1, the two are totally different. The second one is the only
situation in D1 where 'const' doesn't mean compile-time constant.
I guess the same behaviour has been applied in D2, but I'm not sure if
that's intentional or not.
