subject:"\[Issue 7543\] inout opApply should work properly"

[Issue 7543] inout opApply should work properly

2022-12-17 Thread d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7543 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P2 |P4 --

[Issue 7543] inout opApply should work properly

2012-03-10 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7543 --- Comment #14 from Stewart Gordon s...@iname.com 2012-03-10 03:45:21 PST --- (In reply to comment #10) void foo(inout(int)* x, inout(int)* delegate(inout(int)* x) dg) { inout(int)* bar(inout(int)* m) { return m;} auto dg2 = bar;

[Issue 7543] inout opApply should work properly

2012-03-09 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7543 Boscop kingbos...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kingbos...@gmail.com ---

[Issue 7543] inout opApply should work properly

2012-03-09 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7543 timon.g...@gmx.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||timon.g...@gmx.ch --- Comment #5

[Issue 7543] inout opApply should work properly

2012-03-09 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7543 --- Comment #6 from Boscop kingbos...@gmail.com 2012-03-09 14:27:43 PST --- (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) We'll need a clear spec of what it means to have inout at two nesting levels of

[Issue 7543] inout opApply should work properly

2012-03-09 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7543 --- Comment #7 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-03-09 14:35:05 PST --- (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) From that follows (given two types A,B and B : A): B delegate(immutable(A)) : A

[Issue 7543] inout opApply should work properly

2012-03-09 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7543 --- Comment #9 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-03-09 16:05:28 PST --- (In reply to comment #8) Indeed. The point is that there are two possible interpretations of the opApply signature, and the spec isn't clear on which applies: (a) the

[Issue 7543] inout opApply should work properly

2012-03-09 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7543 --- Comment #10 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2012-03-09 16:07:27 PST --- (In reply to comment #8) Indeed. The point is that there are two possible interpretations of the opApply signature, and the spec isn't clear on which

[Issue 7543] inout opApply should work properly

2012-03-09 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7543 --- Comment #11 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-03-09 16:16:14 PST --- (In reply to comment #10) We *absolutely* need a new syntax if case (a) is to be included. I agree. -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 7543] inout opApply should work properly

2012-03-09 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7543 --- Comment #12 from Boscop kingbos...@gmail.com 2012-03-09 16:21:28 PST --- (In reply to comment #7) (In reply to comment #6) (In reply to comment #5) (In reply to comment #4) You can't do: A delegate(inout(A)) dg = (immutable(A)

[Issue 7543] inout opApply should work properly

2012-03-09 Thread d-bugmail

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7543 --- Comment #13 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-03-09 16:36:19 PST --- (In reply to comment #12) I didn't know at first that you wanted to point this out (probably was too distracted by your code example). It seems to me in general that it