https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
anonymous4 changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://issues.dlang.org/sh
|
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
Andrei Alexandrescu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|2.012 |D2
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #33 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2011-11-24
10:25:14 PST ---
Terrific!
--
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=2095
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
yebblies changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #30 from Stewart Gordon 2010-11-27 12:20:15 PST ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> Doesn't the following make x an lvalue?
>
> const(base)[] x = derived_array;
It does ... but appending to x won't alter derived_array. There was, how
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #29 from Jason House 2010-11-27
12:08:04 PST ---
Doesn't the following make x an lvalue?
const(base)[] x = derived_array;
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving th
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #28 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2010-11-27
10:10:58 PST ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> (In reply to comment #26)
> > If derived[] is implicitly converted to const(base)[], what happens when I
> > append another bade object to the arr
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #27 from Andrei Alexandrescu 2010-11-27
06:32:03 PST ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> If derived[] is implicitly converted to const(base)[], what happens when I
> append another bade object to the array? Should it implicitly convert
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #26 from Jason House 2010-11-27
06:24:58 PST ---
If derived[] is implicitly converted to const(base)[], what happens when I
append another bade object to the array? Should it implicitly convert to
const(base[])?
--
Configure issu
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
Andrei Alexandrescu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #24 from Stewart Gordon 2010-11-21 17:26:38 PST ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> > []
>
> Interesting. This type implies array is mutable, so you can put objects into
> it.
No, because you don't know which subclass of A the parti
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #23 from Sobirari Muhomori 2010-11-20
14:30:34 PST ---
> []
Interesting. This type implies array is mutable, so you can put objects into
it. Java will check at runtime for array type, but in D arrays don't have rtti.
--
Config
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #22 from Bruno Medeiros 2010-11-19
15:31:03 PST ---
> Yes, like I mentioned, Steven's solution has some limitations.
I meant Stewart (Gordon), not Steven.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #21 from Bruno Medeiros 2010-11-19
15:29:24 PST ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #19)
>
> > Classes are not like arrays and pointers. These are
> > supposed to be lightweight data types, it's out of place for D
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #20 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-11-18 12:38:47 PST ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Classes are not like arrays and pointers. These are
> supposed to be lightweight data types, it's out of place for D to have that
> extra runtim
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #19 from Bruno Medeiros 2010-11-18
11:10:49 PST ---
I've looked at Stewart Gordon's proposal, and I agree that they are safe and
sound (although it may need to be more detailed or cleaned-up a bit). I
actually had prepared a post o
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #18 from Stewart Gordon 2010-11-17 16:57:33 PST ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Really, the only question is whether you can get away with it with
> some form of const, and I believe that the consensus on it in the
> newsgroup las
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
Jonathan M Davis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmdavisp...@gmx.com
--- Comment #17
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #16 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-11-17 15:13:10 PST ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> I'm afraid, there's nothing to test at runtime,
Some runtime data info may be added, then. There is already some of it for
classes and modules.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #15 from Bruno Medeiros 2010-11-17
12:24:40 PST ---
For the record, the same problem also occurs with pointer types:
B* ba=[new B()].ptr;
A* aa=ba;
*aa=new A;
(*ba).methodB(); // (*ba) is expected to be B, but is A
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #14 from Sobirari Muhomori 2010-11-16
21:55:25 PST ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I think in this case runtime tests in nonrelease builds are better than
> nothing.
I'm afraid, there's nothing to test at runtime, and I thought th
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #13 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-11-16 17:04:34 PST ---
Something about this topic:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2007/10/17/covariance-and-contravariance-in-c-part-two-array-covariance.aspx
This is is an importan
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #12 from Stewart Gordon 2010-09-29 02:47:57 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I think in this case runtime tests in nonrelease builds are better than
> nothing.
In what case? And what would these runtime tests do?
--
Configure
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
Steven Schveighoffer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com
--- Co
There is nothing called a free lunch is this world. If things needed
to be resolved then initiative needs a support to be sorted out.
http://mls.fastrealestate.net>mls
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #9 from ma...@pochta.ru 2009-02-24 03:24 ---
This turned out to be well-known. Bug 926.
In NG: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/17039.html
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #8 from ma...@pochta.ru 2009-02-19 03:09 ---
int[] x=[1,2];
x.length=1;
int[] y=x;
x~=3; // x=[1,3]
y~=4; // x=[1,4]
bug 2093 has little to do with covariance. Added as dependency.
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #7 from ma...@pochta.ru 2009-02-19 03:01 ---
isn't this bug 2093?
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
jason.james.ho...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason.james.ho...@gmail.com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
--- Comment #5 from ma...@pochta.ru 2009-02-18 05:28 ---
As I remember, it was pointed out that rules for implicit conversions of arrays
are formulated uniformly for complex and primitive types, and this report is
exactly about those
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
s...@iname.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@iname.com
--- Comment #4 fr
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
ma...@pochta.ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||2573
nThis|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095
ma...@pochta.ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||la...@virginia.edu
--- Comment
35 matches
Mail list logo
