https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6221
Mathias LANG changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6221
Jonathan M Davis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmdavisp...@gmx.com
--- Comment #6
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6221
--- Comment #5 from Don 2011-07-01 03:12:01 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Shouldn't opCmp be relaxed like opEquals in bug 3659?
It is indeed the same issue. But I'm not convinced by the proposed solution in
bug 3659. We don't need more op
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6221
--- Comment #4 from kenn...@gmail.com 2011-06-30 07:52:16 PDT ---
Shouldn't opCmp be relaxed like opEquals in bug 3659?
--
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=6221
--- Comment #3 from Steven Schveighoffer 2011-06-30
07:24:09 PDT ---
Like I said, I don't know what the right solution is. Previously I thought
auto ref was the solution, but I'm not so sure.
I agree operators need to accept rvalues, but I d
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6221
--- Comment #2 from Don 2011-06-29 23:54:17 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think this bug is invalid. A value-type return is an rvalue, and Andrei has
> made it very clear in his posts and in TDPL that rvalues cannot be bound to
> const
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6221
Steven Schveighoffer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schvei...@yahoo.com
--- Comment
