https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #40 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com ---
Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/33d25844140a0b7785a480cf77f603b40154e7ff
[Refactoring] Remove unnecess
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Jonathan M Davis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mitch.haye...@gmail.com
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Com
/edd0f6fbeeff70eccd7d2e15429b20418360eca5
fix Issue 1528 - [tdpl] overloading template and non-template functions
- Improve `resolveFuncCall` for integrated function call resolution.
All of error reporting is done in here.
- Remove `overloadResolve` and `deduceFuncitonTemplate`
The works was in `overloadResolve` are moved to
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||pull
--- Comment #36 from Kenji Hara 201
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #35 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2013-04-07
19:13:35 PDT ---
@Kenji: My bad, I forgot T:int means exact match, thought it's match with
conversion. (BTW that's a mistake: The syntax in classes suggests that class
T:U means subtyping. Bu
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #34 from Kenji Hara 2013-04-07 18:44:04 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #33)
[snip]
That's the rule described in TDPL. I can completely agree with you.
I believe that my patch implements it enough.
I'd like to add one note for
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #33 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2013-04-07
07:33:07 PDT ---
Great thread. Sorry I'm late to it! Let me make an appeal to simplicity - even
if we come up with a very meaningful and consistent set of overloading rules,
we lose if they a
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #32 from Kenji Hara 2013-03-15 16:51:36 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #31)
> (In reply to comment #30)
> > ...
> > Parameter deduction is less specialized than matching to explicitly
> > specialized type parameter.
> > ...
>
> It's
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #31 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-03-15 15:52:59 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> ...
> Parameter deduction is less specialized than matching to explicitly
> specialized type parameter.
> ...
It's not less specialized than a normal
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #30 from Kenji Hara 2013-03-15 07:27:23 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #29)
> (In reply to comment #28)
> > (In reply to comment #26)
> >
> > It's not about the polysemous literals.
> > What's irritating me is that a function call w
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #29 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-03-14 15:56:33 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> (In reply to comment #26)
>
> It's not about the polysemous literals.
> What's irritating me is that a function call with conversion
> is preferred o
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #28 from Martin Nowak 2013-03-14 15:55:08 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #26)
It's not about the polysemous literals.
What's irritating me is that a function call with conversion
is preferred over a function template instantiation wi
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #27 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-03-14 15:34:50 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> I find the C++ rule pretty plausible.
>
> > In most cases a function template behaves just like a normal function when
> > considering overload resol
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #26 from Kenji Hara 2013-03-14 09:01:49 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #24)
> (In reply to comment #23)
>
> I think this rule is problematic for the function vs. deduced parameter case.
>
> // vs deduced parameter
> int f3(int a) {
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #25 from Martin Nowak 2013-03-14 08:52:21 PDT ---
I find the C++ rule pretty plausible.
> In most cases a function template behaves just like a normal function when
> considering overload resolution. The template argument deduction
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #24 from Martin Nowak 2013-03-14 08:46:43 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #23)
I think this rule is problematic for the function vs. deduced parameter case.
// vs deduced parameter
int f3(int a) { return 1; }
int f3(T)(T b) { return
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #23 from Kenji Hara 2013-03-01 18:17:08 PST
---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Ah, now I see what you mean. You are matching foo!tiargs(funargs).
>
> I was talking about resolving template vs. non-template overloads in the
> foo(funa
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #22 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-03-01 11:48:00 PST ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> (In reply to comment #20)
> > (In reply to comment #19)
> > > (In reply to comment #17)
> > > ...
> > >
> > > In IFTI, the match level for template a
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #21 from Kenji Hara 2013-03-01 03:55:37 PST
---
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> > (In reply to comment #17)
> > ...
> >
> > In IFTI, the match level for template arguments and for function arguments
> > ar
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #20 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-03-01 03:40:36 PST ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> ...
>
> In IFTI, the match level for template arguments and for function arguments are
> distinguished. The former is pri
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #19 from Kenji Hara 2013-03-01 03:26:51 PST
---
(In reply to comment #17)
> > template type parameter deduction without specialization always be
> > MATCHconvert
>
> AFAIK this is a kludgy implementation detail to make specializa
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #18 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-03-01 03:15:40 PST ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> > template type parameter deduction without specialization always be
> > MATCHconvert
>
> AFAIK this is a kludgy implementation detail
It is a bug.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Martin Nowak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@dawg.eu
--- Comment #17 from Marti
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #16 from Kenji Hara 2013-02-28 20:46:30 PST
---
(In reply to comment #13)
> // vs specialized parameter
> int f4(int a) { return 1; }
> int f4(T:int)(T b) { return 2; }
> static assert(f4(1)==1);
Just only this is wrong. f4(T
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #15 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-02-27 06:29:43 PST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> ...
>
> static assert(f6(1L) == 1);
> static assert(f6(ulong.max) == 2); // (a) ???
>
No match.
> ulong ul = runtime();
> static assert(f6(ul) ==
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
monarchdo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||monarchdo...@gmail.com
--- Com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
timon.g...@gmx.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timon.g...@gmx.ch
--- Comment #13 f
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #12 from Kenji Hara 2013-02-24 22:30:26 PST
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> The more specialized overload always wins.
>
> The constraint is not considered when evaluating which is "more specialized".
> (Because in general we cann
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #11 from Walter Bright 2013-02-24
21:54:47 PST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> f3(1); // 1
> f3(1L); // 2
>
> f4(1); // ambiguous
> f4(1L); // ambiguous
>
> f5(1); // 1
> f5(1L); // 1
>
> f6(1); /
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|pull|
--- Comment #10 from Kenji Hara 2013-02
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||pull
--- Comment #9 from Kenji Hara 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #8 from Simen Kjaeraas 2012-08-25 12:19:25
PDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > This bug causes problems with @disabled default constructors.
>
> From what I can tell, @disable this() doesn't work _at all_: bug# 7021
@disable thi
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Jonathan M Davis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmdavisp...@gmx.com
--- Comment #7
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Simen Kjaeraas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simen.kja...@gmail.com
--- Comment #6
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
Andrej Mitrovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dsim...@yahoo.com
--- Comment #5 fro
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
--- Comment #4 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2011-12-24
09:15:52 PST ---
Thanks for consolidating!
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1528
yebblies changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
CC|
39 matches
Mail list logo
