On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 15:58:05 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
I was surprised to find out today that this compiles:
void foo() {}
void foo() {}
void main() {}
Is it a bug, or just a weird design decision? "alphaglosined"
on IRC seemed to think it was a regression. Please confirm, so
that I
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 16:21:26 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
You'll get an error if you call "foo".
I understand that. Still seems like something that the frontend
should detect, unless there's a good use case for multiple
(re)definitions. If I had to guess, it's probably to support
On 2018-07-11 17:58, Luís Marques wrote:
I was surprised to find out today that this compiles:
void foo() {}
void foo() {}
void main() {}
Is it a bug, or just a weird design decision? "alphaglosined" on IRC
seemed to think it was a regression. Please confirm, so that I can file
a bug, or
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 16:01:48 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 15:58:05 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
Definitely a change, but it always compiled, it just used to
fail to link
Do you know why the frontend doesn't complain about a
redefinition, like C++ does?
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 15:58:05 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
I was surprised to find out today that this compiles:
void foo() {}
void foo() {}
void main() {}
Is it a bug, or just a weird design decision? "alphaglosined"
on IRC seemed to think it was a regression. Please confirm, so
that I
On 12/07/2018 3:58 AM, Luís Marques wrote:
I was surprised to find out today that this compiles:
void foo() {}
void foo() {}
void main() {}
Is it a bug, or just a weird design decision? "alphaglosined" on IRC
seemed to think it was a regression. Please confirm, so that I can file
a bug, or
I was surprised to find out today that this compiles:
void foo() {}
void foo() {}
void main() {}
Is it a bug, or just a weird design decision? "alphaglosined" on
IRC seemed to think it was a regression. Please confirm, so that
I can file a bug, or understand the design decision rationale.