www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 9665] New: Structure constant members can not be initialized if have opAssign

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665

           Summary: Structure constant members can not be initialized if
                    have opAssign
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: maximzms gmail.com


--- Comment #0 from Maksim Zholudev <maximzms gmail.com> 2013-03-08 02:49:18
PST ---
Normally constant members of a structure can be initialized in constructor.
However this is not possible if they have overloading of assignment operator.

This restricts usage of complex numbers from std.complex since they are
structures with opAssign.

-------------------
struct Foo1 // opAssign is a function
{
    int value;
    void opAssign(int src) { value = src; }
}

struct Foo2 // opAssign is a template
{
    int value;
    void opAssign()(int src) { value = src; }
}

struct Boo
{
    const Foo1 f1;
    const Foo2 f2;

    this(int src)
    {
        f1 = src; // Error!
        f2 = src; // Error!
    }
}

void main() {}
-------------------
test.d(20): Error: mutable method test.Foo1.opAssign is not callable using a
const object
test.d(21): Error: template test.Foo2.opAssign does not match any function
template declaration. Candidates are:
test.d(10):        test.Foo2.opAssign()(int src)
test.d(21): Error: template test.Foo2.opAssign()(int src) cannot deduce
template function from argument types !()(int)
-------------------

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 08 2013
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665


Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody puremagic.com        |andrei erdani.com


--- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> 2013-03-09 08:01:49 PST ---
This is unfixable problem, if I'm not mistaken.

Currently, compiler always considers opAssign operator overloading for all
field "assignment" in constructor.

struct S {
   T field;
   this(...) { field = xxx; } // If T has opAssign, it is called.
}

But for non-mutable field, opAssign invocation is not legal, because it may
break const correctness.

T* p;
struct T {
   void opAssign(int n) { ...; p = &this; }
}
struct S {
   immutable T field;
   this(...) { field = 1;  // invoke T.opAssign (currently not allowed)
      /* now global p holds mutable pointer to immutable T object! */
   }
}

I have no answer for this issue... So, assigned to Andrei.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665


Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrej.mitrovich gmail.com


--- Comment #2 from Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> 2013-03-09
09:07:15 PST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
 This is unfixable problem, if I'm not mistaken.

What if opAssign is const/inout? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #3 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> 2013-03-09 09:14:18 PST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
 (In reply to comment #1)
 This is unfixable problem, if I'm not mistaken.

What if opAssign is const/inout?

It would be invoked, but you cannot do any meaningful operation in it. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #4 from Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> 2013-03-09
09:16:40 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
 (In reply to comment #2)
 (In reply to comment #1)
 This is unfixable problem, if I'm not mistaken.

What if opAssign is const/inout?

It would be invoked, but you cannot do any meaningful operation in it.

I see. Is there any use for a const opAssign? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665


rswhite4 googlemail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rswhite4 googlemail.com


--- Comment #5 from rswhite4 googlemail.com 2013-03-09 09:32:56 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
 (In reply to comment #2)
 (In reply to comment #1)
 This is unfixable problem, if I'm not mistaken.

What if opAssign is const/inout?

It would be invoked, but you cannot do any meaningful operation in it.

You can: import std.stdio; import std.c.string : memcpy; struct Foo1 // opAssign is a function { int value; void opAssign(int src) const { int* ptr = cast(int*) &this.value; *ptr = src; } } struct Boo { const Foo1 f1; this(int src) { f1 = src; // Error! } } void main() { Boo b = Boo(42); writeln(b.f1.value); // prints 42 } -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #6 from Maksim Zholudev <maximzms gmail.com> 2013-03-09 09:47:58
PST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
 But for non-mutable field, opAssign invocation is not legal, because it may
 break const correctness.
 
 T* p;
 struct T {
    void opAssign(int n) { ...; p = &this; }
 }
 struct S {
    immutable T field;
    this(...) { field = 1;  // invoke T.opAssign (currently not allowed)
       /* now global p holds mutable pointer to immutable T object! */
    }
 }

Is there any way to break const correctness if opAssign is pure? If not, then changes should be allowed for pure opAssign (e.g. with implicit cast field to mutable). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #7 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> 2013-03-09 10:29:11 PST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
[snip]

To enforce breaking type system by language users is not good at all.

When talking about language semantics, unsafe operation like cast must not
appear. Language user can break type system explicitly, but compiler must not
do it.

(In reply to comment #6)
 Is there any way to break const correctness if opAssign is pure?

'pure' attribute does not affect constancy.
 If not, then changes should be allowed for pure opAssign (e.g. with implicit
 cast field to mutable).

opAssign should modify its 'this' object for the meaningful operation, but mutable method cannot call on non-const object, even inside constructor. So this problem is unfixable. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665


Maxim Fomin <maxim maxim-fomin.ru> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |maxim maxim-fomin.ru


--- Comment #8 from Maxim Fomin <maxim maxim-fomin.ru> 2013-03-09 11:02:57 PST
---
(In reply to comment #0)
 Normally constant members of a structure can be initialized in constructor.
 However this is not possible if they have overloading of assignment operator.
 
 This restricts usage of complex numbers from std.complex since they are
 structures with opAssign.
 
 <skipped>

You can do: f2.value = src; which doesn't require opAssign as well as doesn't scale as structure grows. This does not work either when structure has private members. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #9 from Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei erdani.com> 2013-03-09 17:42:11
PST ---
This is an insufficiency in D's design. I think we should approach this the
same way as super() invocation and construction of qualified objects:

1. When a constructor is entered, the object is in a "raw" state.

2. While in this raw state, the object is not considered initialized so it
can't be passed to functions etc. Its const/immutable members (be they by their
own qualifier or propagated from the object) are also raw and can't be passed
out.

3. This raw state lasts until super() has been called EXACTLY ONCE and each
qualified field has been assigned to EXACTLY ONCE.

4. At that point the object has become "cooked" and all restrictions are
lifted.

Kenji, I recall we discussed this design in the context of const and immutable
constructors, and you were favorable to it. How about we extend the same design
for initializing qualified members in all contexts?

We can reuse the same primitive flow analysis that's now used for super().

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665


Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei erdani.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrei erdani.com


--- Comment #10 from Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei erdani.com> 2013-03-09
17:43:08 PST ---
Assigned to Kenji :o).

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665


Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |major


--- Comment #11 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> 2013-03-09 18:27:27 PST
---
(In reply to comment #9)

Thanks for your nice reply! I have recalled description written in TDPL.

 Kenji, I recall we discussed this design in the context of const and immutable
 constructors, and you were favorable to it. How about we extend the same design
 for initializing qualified members in all contexts?

I think it is possible. Now I completely understood. We should need some control flow analysis that is similar to calling super() for the process of initializing object field. (In reply to comment #10)
 Assigned to Kenji :o).

I have received your request! -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #12 from Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei erdani.com> 2013-03-09
18:32:32 PST ---
 Kenji: that's exactly right. Just in case it isn't obvious, that only
assignment for qualified fields while in raw state is not an opAssign call,
it's a constructor call.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 09 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #13 from Maxim Fomin <maxim maxim-fomin.ru> 2013-03-10 01:53:08 PST
---
(In reply to comment #9)
 This is an insufficiency in D's design. I think we should approach this the
 same way as super() invocation and construction of qualified objects

This is close to const vs postblit problem. The problem appeared due to unthoughtful decision to allow const objects mutation during construction. But it is too late now.
 3. This raw state lasts until super() has been called EXACTLY ONCE and each
 qualified field has been assigned to EXACTLY ONCE.

I am afraid such limitation would hurt programming in cases when raw object is touched more than once. By the way, what is about example in comment 1 when non-const opAssign stores mutable pointer to immutable data?
 4. At that point the object has become "cooked" and all restrictions are
 lifted.
 
 Kenji, I recall we discussed this design in the context of const and immutable
 constructors, and you were favorable to it. How about we extend the same design
 for initializing qualified members in all contexts?
 
 We can reuse the same primitive flow analysis that's now used for super().

I think it would be better to have special qualifier for such situation. Anyway we implicitly have it. Problem with flow analysis is that callee may have no idea who is caller due to separate compilation. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 10 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #14 from Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei erdani.com> 2013-03-10
12:33:50 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
 (In reply to comment #9)
 This is an insufficiency in D's design. I think we should approach this the
 same way as super() invocation and construction of qualified objects

This is close to const vs postblit problem. The problem appeared due to unthoughtful decision to allow const objects mutation during construction. But it is too late now.

I disagree it's too late, seeing as I actually propose a solution. Also, this is probably not the best forum to air criticisms about the competence and state of mind of the language designers.
 3. This raw state lasts until super() has been called EXACTLY ONCE and each
 qualified field has been assigned to EXACTLY ONCE.

I am afraid such limitation would hurt programming in cases when raw object is touched more than once.

I agree it would disallow some correct code, but it's not a strong limitation to ask for exactly one initialization.
 By the way, what is about example in comment 1 when non-const opAssign stores
 mutable pointer to immutable data?

I'm not sure what you mean. What about it? This can't occur in the proposed raw/cooked design.
 4. At that point the object has become "cooked" and all restrictions are
 lifted.
 
 Kenji, I recall we discussed this design in the context of const and immutable
 constructors, and you were favorable to it. How about we extend the same design
 for initializing qualified members in all contexts?
 
 We can reuse the same primitive flow analysis that's now used for super().

I think it would be better to have special qualifier for such situation. Anyway we implicitly have it. Problem with flow analysis is that callee may have no idea who is caller due to separate compilation.

I disagree. A new qualifier would complicate the language much more than a typechecking rule for constructors. BTW the raw/cooked design is proven - it's been already used in a number of papers and languages. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 10 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #15 from Maxim Fomin <maxim maxim-fomin.ru> 2013-03-10 13:16:15 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #14)
 (In reply to comment #13)
 (In reply to comment #9)
 This is an insufficiency in D's design. I think we should approach this the
 same way as super() invocation and construction of qualified objects

This is close to const vs postblit problem. The problem appeared due to unthoughtful decision to allow const objects mutation during construction. But it is too late now.

I disagree it's too late, seeing as I actually propose a solution. Also, this is probably not the best forum to air criticisms about the competence and state of mind of the language designers.

The purpose was not to insult language designers but to point that affecting one feature may break its interaction with other features.
 By the way, what is about example in comment 1 when non-const opAssign stores
 mutable pointer to immutable data?

I'm not sure what you mean. What about it? This can't occur in the proposed raw/cooked design.

From what I understood, the proposal is to relax(remove temporarily) constness of members during ctor invocation which allows code like below: T* p; struct T { void opAssign(int n) { ...; p = &this; } } struct S { immutable T field; this(...) { field = 1; // invoke T.opAssign (currently not allowed) /* now global p holds mutable pointer to immutable T object! */ } } Or I misunderstood completely and you really proposing to call something like super(). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 10 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #16 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> 2013-03-10 20:40:34 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #15)
 From what I understood, the proposal is to relax(remove temporarily) constness
 of members during ctor invocation which allows code like below:
 
 T* p;
 struct T {
    void opAssign(int n) { ...; p = &this; }
 }
 struct S {
    immutable T field;
    this(...) { field = 1;  // invoke T.opAssign (currently not allowed)
       /* now global p holds mutable pointer to immutable T object! */
    }
 }
 
 Or I misunderstood completely and you really proposing to call something like
 super().

In the raw/cooked design, you cannot call mutable T.opAssign from immutable field, even inside constructor. Instead, you should use whole object "assignment" for the field. struct S { immutable T field; this(...) { field = immutable(T)(...); // T's literal or constructor call // This _looks like_ "assignment" but in practice // it would be treated as initializing. So opAssign is not invoked. } } -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 10 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #17 from Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei erdani.com> 2013-05-05
19:00:14 PDT ---
So Kenji, did you fix this bug in trunk?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 05 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #18 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> 2013-05-07 04:25:59 PDT
---
(In reply to comment #17)
 So Kenji, did you fix this bug in trunk?

In local I've tried to fix this, but it had broke Phobos compilation by the lack of proper postblit feature. Sorry... -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 07 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665


Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |samukha voliacable.com


--- Comment #19 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> 2013-10-10 05:14:26 PDT
---
*** Issue 11204 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 10 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #20 from Max Samukha <samukha voliacable.com> 2013-10-10 07:07:59
PDT ---
I see there was a discussion in bug 9665. Kenji, if you are fixing this, please
don't forget about postblit, which is a constructor and should have similar
semantics. That is:

struct S {
     disable this();

    this(int x) {        
    }

    static int postblit;
    this(this) {
        postblit = true;
    }

    static int assigned;
    void opAssign(S s) {
        assigned = true;
    }
}

class A {
    S s;

    this() {
        auto s1 = S(1);
        s = s1;
        assert(!S.assigned);
        assert(S.postblit);
    }
}

void main() {
    auto a = new A;     
}


Copy-construction should be performed, not assignment.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 10 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #21 from Max Samukha <samukha voliacable.com> 2013-10-10 07:10:42
PDT ---
(In reply to comment #20)
"I see there was a discussion in bug 9665." - ignore this sentence.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 10 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665


Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |pull, rejects-valid
             Blocks|                            |11186, 11246, 10357


--- Comment #22 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> 2013-10-14 05:58:29 PDT
---
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2665
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/1637

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 14 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #23 from github-bugzilla puremagic.com 2013-10-14 15:19:11 PDT ---
Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/644e11ea46ac671b4a1a34a31ef5e72a6f89a2d2
fix Issue 9665 - Structure constant members can not be initialized if have
opAssign

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/5f725db1141d98c67ee3515f4edb7b43692173d7
Merge pull request #1637 from 9rnsr/fix9665

Supplemental fix for issue 9665 - Structure constant members can not be
initialized if have opAssign

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 14 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #24 from github-bugzilla puremagic.com 2013-10-14 15:20:11 PDT ---
Commit pushed to 2.064 at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/f5606620c5f106694a6c1ec082587d8ffba1a6c7
Merge pull request #1637 from 9rnsr/fix9665

Supplemental fix for issue 9665 - Structure constant members can not be
initialized if have opAssign

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 14 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #25 from github-bugzilla puremagic.com 2013-10-14 20:51:16 PDT ---
Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/f8386c7eeb2518779e42e753507538188c1e3be5
fix Issue 9665 - Structure constant members can not be initialized if have
opAssign

- Change the first field assignment inside constructor to true initialization.
- Disable multiple initialization of non-mutable field, if it is once
initialized.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/84ee9522f470cdb90031c4a8542c32e753d1462c
Merge pull request #2665 from 9rnsr/fix9665

Issue 9665 - Structure constant members can not be initialized if have opAssign

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 14 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #26 from github-bugzilla puremagic.com 2013-10-14 20:51:57 PDT ---
Commit pushed to 2.064 at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/44d568a7f83a43d6bbd31cbcfcf194da39a3beb7
Merge pull request #2665 from 9rnsr/fix9665

Issue 9665 - Structure constant members can not be initialized if have opAssign

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 14 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665


Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |bugzilla digitalmars.com
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 14 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665


Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |acehreli yahoo.com


--- Comment #27 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> 2013-10-20 02:32:33 PDT
---
*** Issue 9732 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 20 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #28 from github-bugzilla puremagic.com 2013-11-03 20:47:08 PST ---
Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/commit/76bf0a581313aa6f2702f23a577f28d32a5d385f
fix Issue 9665 - Structure constant members can not be initialized if have
opAssign

Describe about field initialization behavior.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/commit/0af070ef719ef65ddd325dfb5d68b5fd987ce6aa
Merge pull request #404 from 9rnsr/fix9665

Issue 9665 - Structure constant members can not be initialized if have opAssign

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 03 2013
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9665



--- Comment #29 from github-bugzilla puremagic.com 2013-11-03 20:49:18 PST ---
Commit pushed to 2.064 at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/commit/101d3a7a229b45bd97bc922f7c4df465f72d2432
Merge pull request #404 from 9rnsr/fix9665

Issue 9665 - Structure constant members can not be initialized if have opAssign

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 03 2013