[Issue 7206] New: Constructor from mixin does not conflict with other constructors

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7206 Summary: Constructor from mixin does not conflict with other constructors Product: D Version: D2 Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity:

[Issue 7206] Constructor from mixin does not conflict with other constructors

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7206 --- Comment #1 from Robert Clipsham rob...@octarineparrot.com 2012-01-02 22:13:34 GMT --- I forgot to mention, when ErrorsAsExpected is not defined, this prints b, the constructor from the mixin is disregarded. -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 7206] Constructor from mixin does not conflict with other constructors

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7206 timon.g...@gmx.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||timon.g...@gmx.ch --- Comment #2

[Issue 7206] Constructor from mixin does not conflict with other constructors

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7206 Trass3r mrmoc...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Issue 7201] Lambda template assignment to variable

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7201 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #1

[Issue 7198] Delegate literals with nameless arguments fail to infer a type

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7198 --- Comment #8 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2012-01-02 16:59:46 PST --- (In reply to comment #6) Ok, I understand. There are already a number of situation where the decision Type/Variable is deferred to the semantic phase. Would it

[Issue 7202] Hole in type system still present for delegates

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7202 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #1

[Issue 7196] Unfair function address overload resolution

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7196 --- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2012-01-02 18:18:56 PST --- (In reply to comment #4) If the compiler rewrites (foo)(arguments...) to foo(arguments...), is it now able to inline delegates that are called directly like for

[Issue 7203] Method pointer types differ depending on context

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7203 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Issue 7207] New: Explicit cast should resolve lambda type

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7207 Summary: Explicit cast should resolve lambda type Product: D Version: D2 Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2

[Issue 7208] New: Unique arrays should be covariant

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7208 Summary: Unique arrays should be covariant Product: D Version: D2 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component:

[Issue 7208] Unique arrays should be covariant

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7208 Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 7208] Unique arrays should be covariant

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7208 --- Comment #2 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-01-02 22:14:18 PST --- No. There is no issue if the array is provable unique. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail

[Issue 7207] Explicit cast should resolve lambda type

2012-01-02 Thread d-bugmail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7207 Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch, rejects-valid

<    1   2