http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=911
--- Comment #7 from clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-05-04 05:29 ---
This all works for me on both DMD1.042 and 2.029 Windows.
Can someone who observed the original bug confirm that it is fixed?
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2917
--- Comment #1 from ghaec...@idworld.net 2009-05-04 05:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=348)
--> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=348&action=view)
patch for std.date.d v. 2.029 fixes issues with negative time values
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2757
nick.barbal...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|I
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=911
--- Comment #8 from fvbom...@wxs.nl 2009-05-04 05:56 ---
This currently produces this (reasonable) error:
---
test.d(6): Error: tuple has no effect in expression (tuple(0))
---
for me with DMD 1.043, and using it to instantiate another
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=911
clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1984
--- Comment #2 from clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2009-05-04 07:11 ---
Reduced test case shows it's a problem with CTFE and AA literals.
immutable bool [int] map = [ 4:true, 5:true ];
int foo () {
foreach (x; map.keys) {}
return 3;
}
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2440
clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2437
clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jlqu...@optonline.net
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
--- Comment #12 from ma...@pochta.ru 2009-05-04 08:11 ---
Caller can't check descendant contracts, which can succeed.
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2913
--- Comment #3 from ma...@pochta.ru 2009-05-04 08:44 ---
dup of bug 2753?
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2935
Summary: ICE(out.c) using struct with constructor as function
default argument
Product: D
Version: 2.029
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keyw
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2934
--- Comment #1 from qian...@funkwerk-itk.com 2009-05-04 09:25 ---
Sorry. I should have post the following code:
char[] s;
assert(s is null);
assert(s.dup is null);
assert("" !is null); // OK
assert("".dup !is null)
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2520
clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1994
clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ac...@free.fr
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=302
--- Comment #13 from s...@iname.com 2009-05-04 08:48 ---
But if the arguments to a method aren't guaranteed to pass the base class
contracts, one wouldn't be calling it through a base class reference. Hence my
point.
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2589
clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2934
Summary: "".dup does not return empty string
Product: D
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Compo
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2934
schvei...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
On Mon, 4 May 2009 17:44:56 + (UTC), d-bugm...@puremagic.com wrote:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2934
>
> schvei...@yahoo.com changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
On Mon, 04 May 2009 16:56:49 -0400, Derek Parnell wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009 17:44:56 + (UTC), d-bugm...@puremagic.com wrote:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2934
schvei...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:16:45 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> what's not intuitive is comparing an array (which is a struct) to null.
Hmmm ... interesting. I regard the array not as a struct but as a concept
implemented in D as a struct.
> char[] arr1 = "";
> char[] arr2 = null;
>
> asser
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2936
Summary: std.regex.match() short string optimization
Product: D
Version: 2.029
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: performance
Severity: enhancem
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2251
--- Comment #5 from dsim...@yahoo.com 2009-05-04 21:44 ---
Bug 854 is very closely related to this and has had a patch for a while that
probably fixes this one, too. Please apply.
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2863
dsim...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2251
dsim...@yahoo.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2937
Summary: postblit not called for foreach arg over array of
structs
Product: D
Version: 2.029
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2937
--- Comment #1 from crist...@zerobugs.org 2009-05-04 23:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=349)
--> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=349&action=view)
test case
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2939
Summary: lazy evaluation not invoked for lambda function
Product: D
Version: 2.029
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2938
Summary: incorrect code generated for assignment to assoc array
element
Product: D
Version: 2.029
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Severity: n
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2939
--- Comment #1 from jarrett.billings...@gmail.com 2009-05-05 00:16 ---
The foreach loop is actually not important.
void f(lazy void dg)
{
dg();
}
void main()
{
void foo() { Stdout.formatln("o hai"); }
f(foo);
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2939
--- Comment #2 from jarrett.billings...@gmail.com 2009-05-05 00:17 ---
Also, this happens in D1 as well. I'm never clear on what should be done with
the bug versions in these cases..
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2939
clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|2.029 |1.042
--- Comment #3 from
32 matches
Mail list logo
