On Wed, 20 May 2015 17:23:05 -0700 Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 05/20/2015 04:10 PM, Mike Parker wrote: > > On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 at 13:46:22 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote: > >> DOC say `may not have` not `must not have` ;-) > >> > > > > OK, if that's the intent, it needs to be reworded. As it stands, it > > looks more like it's saying specialization is not permissible, > > rather than what "might" be possible. > > That's the only meaning that I get: The doc means "must not". Yet, as > you've shown, the behavior does not match the doc. > > Ali > 1.) we could fix just doc - easiest, but inconsistent 2.) remove implicit deduction even for fun(T:char)(T c) and all other specialization - code breakage so imho not good 3.) fix doc and allow even fun(T:T*)(T* p) - same as 2
