https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19464
--- Comment #3 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com ---
Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/dlang/dmd
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/b5f54880fea5a9a5bd1cbdb6767a2e34ef2b8761
Fix Issue 19464 - typeof immutable fields order dependent
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19464
github-bugzi...@puremagic.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19464
RazvanN changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||razvan.nitu1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19464
Simen Kjaeraas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simen.kja...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19464
Issue ID: 19464
Summary: typeof immutable fields order dependent
Product: D
Version: D2
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority
initialization for
const/immutable fields
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/commit/033d324957ff5bee8e25c7335eab2c562d17e2b1
Merge pull request #8399 from wilzbach/fix-19022
Fix Issue 19022 - CTorFlow: Show the line of the duplicated initialization for
const/immutable fields
merged-on-behalf-of: Jacob
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19022
github-bugzi...@puremagic.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19022
--- Comment #1 from Seb ---
A naive attempt: https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8399
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19022
Issue ID: 19022
Summary: CTorFlow: Show the line of the duplicated
initialization for const/immutable fields
Product: D
Version: D2
Hardware: All
OS: All
A recent discussion
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3452 brought up a
matter I'd forgotten - struct fields that are immutable and have
initializer are deprecated.
Why?
Andrei
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:09:01 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
A recent discussion
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3452 brought up a
matter I'd forgotten - struct fields that are immutable and have
initializer are deprecated.
Why?
I
In future release, non-static const or immutable field will be made an
instance field.
struct S
{
immutable int x = 1;
}
static assert(S.sizeof == int.sizeof); // will succeed in the future
So current implicit static behavior is now deprecated.
Related:
On Tuesday, 29 April 2014 at 17:11:50 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:09:01 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
A recent discussion
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3452
brought up a matter I'd forgotten - struct fields
On 4/29/14, 10:18 AM, Kenji Hara via Digitalmars-d wrote:
In future release, non-static const or immutable field will be made an
instance field.
struct S
{
immutable int x = 1;
}
static assert(S.sizeof == int.sizeof); // will succeed in the future
So current implicit static behavior is
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10753
monarchdo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10753
monarchdo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||monarchdo...@gmail.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10753
Summary: std.array.array of a range of structs with immutable
fields too
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords
Hi,
I am trying to instantiate a Tuple that contains an immutable field.
Is there a way to do this with the current implementation? The
compiler gives me this error:
std/typecons.d(383): Error: can only initialize const member
_field_field_0 inside constructor
tuple_test.d(5): Error: template
Jose Armando Garcia:
I am trying to instantiate a Tuple that contains an immutable field.
Is there a way to do this with the current implementation?
I think this is not yet possible. I am not sure, but maybe even small changes
to conts are needed to fix this problem.
Bye,
bearophile
On 03/11/2010 10:42, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:54:35 -0400, bearophile wrote:
Is it correct for immutable struct fields to act like enum or static
const fields? (I don't think so, but I am wrong often):
This is bug 3449:
On 2010-11-08 02:13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/7/10 2:40 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 03/11/2010 03:06, Daniel Murphy wrote:
bearophilebearophileh...@lycos.com wrote in message
news:iaqbsb$1d3...@digitalmars.com...
Is it correct for immutable struct fields to act like enum or static
On 03/11/2010 03:06, Daniel Murphy wrote:
bearophilebearophileh...@lycos.com wrote in message
news:iaqbsb$1d3...@digitalmars.com...
Is it correct for immutable struct fields to act like enum or static const
fields? (I don't think so, but I am wrong often):
immutable struct fields can be
On 11/7/10 2:40 PM, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 03/11/2010 03:06, Daniel Murphy wrote:
bearophilebearophileh...@lycos.com wrote in message
news:iaqbsb$1d3...@digitalmars.com...
Is it correct for immutable struct fields to act like enum or static
const
fields? (I don't think so, but I am wrong
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:54:35 -0400, bearophile wrote:
Is it correct for immutable struct fields to act like enum or static
const fields? (I don't think so, but I am wrong often):
This is bug 3449:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3449
-Lars
Lars T. Kyllingstad:
This is bug 3449:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3449
Thank you to you and the others that have answered in this thread. That's an
important bug, it changes how much I can use immutables.
Bye,
bearophile
Is it correct for immutable struct fields to act like enum or static const
fields? (I don't think so, but I am wrong often):
struct Foo {
immutable int x = 1;
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 4);
void main() {}
More info in the D.learn thread:
bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote in message
news:iaqbsb$1d3...@digitalmars.com...
Is it correct for immutable struct fields to act like enum or static const
fields? (I don't think so, but I am wrong often):
immutable struct fields can be changed inside the constructor, so they must
On Tuesday 02 November 2010 17:54:35 bearophile wrote:
Is it correct for immutable struct fields to act like enum or static const
fields? (I don't think so, but I am wrong often):
struct Foo {
immutable int x = 1;
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 4);
void main() {}
More info in the
Jonathan M Davis:
Why would it really matter though?
I guess you have not followed my link with more explanations, right? :-)
Bye,
bearophile
On 03/11/10 00:54, bearophile wrote:
Is it correct for immutable struct fields to act like enum or static const
fields? (I don't think so, but I am wrong often):
struct Foo {
immutable int x = 1;
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 4);
void main() {}
More info in the D.learn thread:
Daniel Murphy:
immutable struct fields can be changed inside the constructor, so they must
be non-static.
So do you think my code shows a compiler bug?
Bye,
bearophile
On 03/11/10 02:20, Gareth Charnock wrote:
On 03/11/10 00:54, bearophile wrote:
Is it correct for immutable struct fields to act like enum or static
const fields? (I don't think so, but I am wrong often):
struct Foo {
immutable int x = 1;
}
static assert(Foo.sizeof == 4);
void main() {}
More
On Tuesday 02 November 2010 19:24:29 bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
Why would it really matter though?
I guess you have not followed my link with more explanations, right? :-)
Bye,
bearophile
I don't really get what you're doing there or what the problem is. You cast one
struct to
Jonathan M Davis, el 2 de noviembre a las 20:02 me escribiste:
On Tuesday 02 November 2010 19:24:29 bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
Why would it really matter though?
I guess you have not followed my link with more explanations, right? :-)
Bye,
bearophile
I don't really
Daniel Murphy, el 3 de noviembre a las 13:52 me escribiste:
bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote in message
news:iaqgvl$1qb...@digitalmars.com...
So do you think my code shows a compiler bug?
I'd like immutable to be implicitly static in some cases eg.
void foo()
{
immutable
On Tuesday 02 November 2010 21:00:00 Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Jonathan M Davis, el 2 de noviembre a las 20:02 me escribiste:
On Tuesday 02 November 2010 19:24:29 bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
Why would it really matter though?
I guess you have not followed my link with more
36 matches
Mail list logo
