https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16014
Mathias LANG changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16014
--- Comment #5 from Jack Stouffer ---
(In reply to Kenji Hara from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jack Stouffer from comment #2)
> > It could at least be made to work with string literals and manifest
> > constants, right?
>
> I think it's not good to i
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16014
j...@red.email.ne.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j...@red.email.ne.jp
--- Comment #4 fr
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16014
--- Comment #3 from Kenji Hara ---
(In reply to Jack Stouffer from comment #2)
> It could at least be made to work with string literals and manifest
> constants, right?
I think it's not good to implement vulnerable behavior. It would just bloat
comp
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16014
--- Comment #2 from Jack Stouffer ---
It could at least be made to work with string literals and manifest constants,
right?
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16014
--- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara ---
Although the OP code is legitimate from the D grammar spec, there's not yet
proper definition/implementation for the semantic analysis.
I'm not sure how compiler should behave with:
deprecated(a.foo() ~ a.bar()) m
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16014
Jack Stouffer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
--
