http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4061
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=242
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simen.kja...@gmail.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4071
--- Comment #8 from Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com 2010-04-09 02:26:03 PDT ---
That may actually a better idea, to let every binary handle its own
initialization. Then I guess there will be no problem with module constructors
that are run when they
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3982
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3684
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4075
Summary: [CTFE] forward reference error with auto
Product: D
Version: future
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3911
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3972
--- Comment #5 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-04-09 10:39:50 PDT ---
In dmd 2.043 now compiling spam.d generates the error:
spam.d(3): Error: module bar from file foo.d conflicts with another module bar
from file foo.d
That's not a a good