I don't think there's a bug report specifically on this.
"bearophile" wrote in message
news:ivmigl$98a$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Daniel Murphy:
>
>> Yeah, type deduction with modifiers is inconsistent.
>>
>> In some cases matching T to const(U) gives U == tailconst(T), but not in
>> others.
>> T
Daniel Murphy:
> Yeah, type deduction with modifiers is inconsistent.
>
> In some cases matching T to const(U) gives U == tailconst(T), but not in
> others.
> The problem exists with pointers, arrays, and (if we ever get it) Michel
> Fortin's const(Object)ref.
Is this already in Bugzilla, or d
Yeah, type deduction with modifiers is inconsistent.
In some cases matching T to const(U) gives U == tailconst(T), but not in
others.
The problem exists with pointers, arrays, and (if we ever get it) Michel
Fortin's const(Object)ref.
A big part of the problem is that it can match with implicit
A D2 program:
T[] foo(T)(const T[] x) {
//static assert(is(U == int)); // false
static assert(is(T == const(int)));
return new T[1];
}
U[] bar(U)(const U[] y) {
static assert(is(U == int));
return foo(y);
}
void main() {
bar([1]);
}
DMD 2.054 gives:
test.d(8): Error: can
