digitalmars.D.announce - Re: DMD 1.033 (typeof() error instantiating in template)
- David L. Davis (4/25) Jul 17 2008 No Problem.
- BCS (2/6) Jul 17 2008 His stance is that typeof(Type) is /not/ valid, D1.0 or D2.0.
- David L. Davis (3/13) Jul 17 2008 Got it, thanks.
- Bill Baxter (6/20) Jul 17 2008 Yes, it was reported as a bug (multiple times?) already. And the bugs
- David L. Davis (4/26) Jul 18 2008 Thanks for the info Bill, I must admit I haven't been following the NG a...
Koroskin Denis Wrote:On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:20:48 +0400, David L. Davis <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> wrote:No Problem. And thanks again, you're suggestion of using "T2 v2" in place of "typeof(T2) v2" does fix the issue in my aging D v1.xxx code. (In fact it makes a lot more sense that it should work this way, but the fact still remains that it does break any of the existing D v1.xxx code written the other way). But I'll leave that up Walter to decide if the risk to existing D v1.xxx code is very low as to whether he'll leave the valid D v1.xxxx statement "typeof(T2) v2" as an error, or to fix it. If he decides to fix it, then I'll put in a bug report, otherwise I'll just change my code, and continue testing this code against the future D v1.xxx releases (just trying do my small part in moving D forward). David L. DavisKoroskin Denis Wrote:Sorry for that, no offense was intended.typeof(T2) doesn't work anymore. Try replacing with T2. BTW, error message is pretty clear and shows correct line number. typeof(T2) v2; // Error: argument ulong to typeof is not an expression Next time post to digitalmars.D or digitalmars.D.learn, please!Thxs for the reply...btw I'm not new here...I know all about noob questions must go to learn. This is an issue with the existing D v1.xxx compiler changing things, which is what I'm pointing out to Walter. Plus, maybe the message makes perfect sense to you...but it doesn't to me. Could you please reframe from hammering down on people in the future...to me you're the new kid on the block. :) David L. Davis
Jul 17 2008
Reply to David,I'll leave that up Walter to decide if the risk to existing D v1.xxx code is very low as to whether he'll leave the valid D v1.xxxx statement "typeof(T2) v2" as an errorHis stance is that typeof(Type) is /not/ valid, D1.0 or D2.0.
Jul 17 2008
BCS Wrote:Reply to David,Got it, thanks. David L. DavisI'll leave that up Walter to decide if the risk to existing D v1.xxx code is very low as to whether he'll leave the valid D v1.xxxx statement "typeof(T2) v2" as an errorHis stance is that typeof(Type) is /not/ valid, D1.0 or D2.0.
Jul 17 2008
David L. Davis wrote:BCS Wrote:Yes, it was reported as a bug (multiple times?) already. And the bugs were closed as invalid by Walter. Also mentioned on the NG here a few times I think. But you're right, it did break a lot of code. And it's not always easy to tell why. --bbReply to David,Got it, thanks. David L. DavisI'll leave that up Walter to decide if the risk to existing D v1.xxx code is very low as to whether he'll leave the valid D v1.xxxx statement "typeof(T2) v2" as an errorHis stance is that typeof(Type) is /not/ valid, D1.0 or D2.0.
Jul 17 2008
Bill Baxter Wrote:David L. Davis wrote:Thanks for the info Bill, I must admit I haven't been following the NG as closely as I did in the past. I do try to scan them at least once a day during the work-week. Also it's nice to see a lot more people posting tho, just wish this NG search ability were better. Thanks again for the reply, David L. DavisBCS Wrote:Yes, it was reported as a bug (multiple times?) already. And the bugs were closed as invalid by Walter. Also mentioned on the NG here a few times I think. But you're right, it did break a lot of code. And it's not always easy to tell why. --bbReply to David,Got it, thanks. David L. DavisI'll leave that up Walter to decide if the risk to existing D v1.xxx code is very low as to whether he'll leave the valid D v1.xxxx statement "typeof(T2) v2" as an errorHis stance is that typeof(Type) is /not/ valid, D1.0 or D2.0.
Jul 18 2008