On 08/27/2012 12:32 PM, Manu wrote:
On 27 August 2012 11:28, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com <mailto:newshou...@digitalmars.com>> wrote:On 8/27/2012 1:08 AM, Manu wrote: Also, I think it could be fixed so the scenario in the bug report worked as expected (I still don't understand why it did't work in the first place). Because the two types were considered to be the same, only different. And how was that a problem? They never interacted in the example, the assignments were totally separate, they shouldn't have been confused. Just speculating, but it just looks like the type was misrepresented when it was looked up from a map by name or something, and matched the wrong cached definition... or something along those lines. It looks like a bug exposed from implementation detail, I can't see anything in the bug report that shouldn't theoretically work fine. ...
+1.
