http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7106
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7120
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7174
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, rejects-valid
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7196
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, rejects-valid
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4976
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7196
Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@iname.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7196
--- Comment #3 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2012-01-02 03:19:13 PST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This is strange - issue 52 is marked as fixed, so why does it still EVER pick
the wrong instance?
This problem is only when the caller of
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7073
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, rejects-valid
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4349
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7198
Summary: Delegate literals with nameless arguments fail to
infer a type
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7198
--- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2012-01-02 05:35:59 PST ---
I guess the trouble is that the delegate argument Widget is interpreted as a
parameter name, not the type. Using int instead of Widget compiles.
Yes, you're right.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7198
Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@me.com
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7199
Summary: std.string.indexof cannot be compiled with -inline
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords: rejects-valid
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7198
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de 2012-01-02 07:44:36
PST ---
Ok, I understand.
There are already a number of situation where the decision Type/Variable is
deferred to the semantic phase. Would it be possible to do the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7198
--- Comment #7 from Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com 2012-01-02 09:09:00 PST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
(I don't actually know why we have unnamed parameters at all; most modern
languages
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7200
Summary: Array append causes Access Violation with symbolic
debug info
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: x86
OS/Version: Windows
Status: NEW
Keywords:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7201
Summary: Lambda template assignment to variable
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7202
Summary: Hole in type system still present for delegates
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7196
--- Comment #4 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-01-02 11:47:18 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
This is strange - issue 52 is marked as fixed, so why does it still EVER
pick
the wrong instance?
This problem is
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813
--- Comment #15 from Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu 2012-01-02 12:02:40 PST ---
Vladimir, the code in
https://github.com/CyberShadow/ae/blob/master/utils/appender.d
seems to be under the MPL, which isn't Phobos compatible. What license is the
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813
--- Comment #16 from Vladimir Panteleev thecybersha...@gmail.com 2012-01-02
12:10:18 PST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Vladimir, the code in
https://github.com/CyberShadow/ae/blob/master/utils/appender.d
seems to be under the MPL, which
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7203
Summary: Method pointer types differ depending on context
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7204
Summary: [CTFE] Assertion failure when attempting to access
function pointer of delegate
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813
--- Comment #17 from Rob Jacques sandf...@jhu.edu 2012-01-02 13:16:19 PST ---
That said, I did write a faster
chained appender for your benchmarks; however I did this by initializing the
appender with a page of memory, which definitely
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5813
--- Comment #18 from Vladimir Panteleev thecybersha...@gmail.com 2012-01-02
13:32:01 PST ---
(In reply to comment #17)
For part 1 (fastest possible 'chained' appender): Simply construct specifying
a
large number of elements. i.e.
auto app
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7205
Summary: Function attribute inference fails in case of mutual
dependencies
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity:
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:
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:
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
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7206
Trass3r mrmoc...@gmx.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7201
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1
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
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7202
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1
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
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7203
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
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
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:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7208
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
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
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7207
Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, rejects-valid
40 matches
Mail list logo
