On Sunday, 25 November 2012 at 16:42:03 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
Recently I saw a major pull affecting this behavior, so in
2.061 the situation may be changed (I haven't bother to figure
yet). In practice this makes a tricky thing to understand what
S() is and creates a problem when you e.x. hea
On Sunday, 25 November 2012 at 16:01:39 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Could you please create a bug report:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/
Ali
Filed an issue 9078.
On Sunday, 25 November 2012 at 15:27:53 UTC, comco wrote:
A!B(...) defines a struct A with B typed in as Method, so call
to method(s); is the same as B(string)
Why is that? Here method is an instance of the type Method, not
the type Method itself, so by saying `method(s)` we can't mean
a cons
On 11/25/2012 07:27 AM, comco wrote:
>
>> A!B(...) defines a struct A with B typed in as Method, so call to
>> method(s); is the same as B(string)
> Why is that? Here method is an instance of the type Method, not the type
> Method itself,
That could be case but you original code did use a type na
A!B(...) defines a struct A with B typed in as Method, so call
to method(s); is the same as B(string)
Why is that? Here method is an instance of the type Method, not
the type Method itself, so by saying `method(s)` we can't mean a
constructor. Something very strange happens...
I have a simple
On Saturday, 24 November 2012 at 20:34:39 UTC, comco wrote:
I have the following snippet:
struct A(alias Method)
{
string s;
this(Method method) {
method(s); // 5
}
}
struct B
{
this(int i) { }
void opCall(string s) { }
}
void main() {
A!B(B(0));
}
This code
I have the following snippet:
struct A(alias Method)
{
string s;
this(Method method) {
method(s); // 5
}
}
struct B
{
this(int i) { }
void opCall(string s) { }
}
void main() {
A!B(B(0));
}
This code fails to compile with the following errors:
test.d(5): Error:
