Ali Cehreli wrote:
Don Wrote:
void main()
{
int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ];
int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
}
dmd: init.c:431: virtual Expression* ArrayInitializer::toExpression(): Assertion
`j < edim' failed.
I've added this to Bugzilla as bug 3246. With a patch .
Thank you for the quick f
Don Wrote:
> > void main()
> > {
> > int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ];
> > int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
> > }
> >
> > dmd: init.c:431: virtual Expression* ArrayInitializer::toExpression():
> > Assertion `j < edim' failed.
>
> I've added this to Bugzilla as bug 3246. With a patch .
Thank you fo
Ali Cehreli wrote:
Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
I've tried with DMD 2.031, and I can't reproduce this. This works fine
for me:
int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ]:
int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
Where did you put the declarations? I've tried putting them at both
module level and in a class, and both
Ali Cehreli wrote:
Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
I've tried with DMD 2.031, and I can't reproduce this. This works fine
for me:
int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ]:
int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
Where did you put the declarations? I've tried putting them at both
module level and in a class, and both
Ali Cehreli wrote:
Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
I've tried with DMD 2.031, and I can't reproduce this. This works fine
for me:
int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ]:
int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
Where did you put the declarations? I've tried putting them at both
module level and in a class, and both
Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
> I've tried with DMD 2.031, and I can't reproduce this. This works fine
> for me:
>
>int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ]:
>int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
>
> Where did you put the declarations? I've tried putting them at both
> module level and in a class, and both times
Ali Cehreli wrote:
The 'static' keyword is required by dmd 2.031 for the second of these two
definitions:
int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ];
static int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
Is this inconsistency by design? Should 'static' be required for both or
neither?
Ali
I've tried with DMD 2.031, and
The 'static' keyword is required by dmd 2.031 for the second of these two
definitions:
int[2] static_0 = [ 1, 1 ];
static int[2] static_1 = [ 1:1 ];
Is this inconsistency by design? Should 'static' be required for both or
neither?
Ali
