https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
--- Comment #16 from Denis Shelomovskij ---
(In reply to Kenji Hara from comment #15)
> (In reply to Denis Shelomovskij from comment #14)
> > static assert(!__traits(compiles, { S2 s2 = { 5 }; })); // fails
> > static assert(!__traits(compiles, { S2 s
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
Denis Shelomovskij changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||verylonglogin@gmail.com
--- C
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
Andrej Mitrovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc
--- Comment #
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
--- Comment #12 from Andrej Mitrovic 2012-12-23
06:17:09 PST ---
*** Issue 7152 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this ma
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
Andrej Mitrovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com
--- Comme
/f51a4268bcf42e14ef40bdc0137399cddc965f03
fix Issue 7019 - implicit constructors are inconsistently allowed
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/2daf24fd4a036331d3428f9381c65a9be3b12319
Merge pull request #1213 from 9rnsr/fix7019
Issue 7019 - implicit constructors are inconsistently allowed
--
Configure issuemail
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||pull
--- Comment #9 from Kenji Hara 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
Andrei Alexandrescu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||and...@metalanguage.com
--- Comm
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
mail.mantis...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mail.mantis...@gmail.com
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
Vladimir Panteleev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thecybersha...@gmail.com
--- Comm
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
--- Comment #5 from Trass3r 2012-01-26 19:33:22 CET ---
I vote for doing the opposite of C++ and introducing a @implicit tag for
constructors that are to be used in the fashion I depicted.
We really need an easy way to finely control implicit c
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
--- Comment #4 from Kenji Hara 2012-01-26 06:24:43 PST ---
Is this a dup of 4875?
Recently Walter commented in that issue, and marked it WONTFIX.
He said:
> Allowing such implicit conversions works in C++, but is considered a defect by
> expe
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
timon.g...@gmx.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siegelords_ab...@yahoo.com
--- Comm
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
bioinfornatics changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bioinfornat...@gmail.com
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7019
--- Comment #1 from Trass3r 2011-11-26 16:49:56 PST ---
Especially the function argument one bugs me.
I have a vector struct templated on the number type. It is instantiated with a
handful of basic types like float, int etc. and a custom fixed-
16 matches
Mail list logo
