www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 1486] New: Can't implicitly convert char[][] to const(char)[][]

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1486

           Summary: Can't implicitly convert char[][] to const(char)[][]
           Product: D
           Version: 2.004
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: reiner.pope gmail.com


The following code fails to compile, with error "cannot implicitly convert
expression (a) of type char[][] to const(char)[][]". However, it appears to be
a valid operation.

void main() {
    char[][] a;
    string[] b = a;
}


--
Sep 07 2007
next sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:

 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1486
 
            Summary: Can't implicitly convert char[][] to const(char)[][]
            Product: D
            Version: 2.004
           Platform: PC
         OS/Version: Windows
             Status: NEW
           Severity: normal
           Priority: P2
          Component: DMD
         AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
         ReportedBy: reiner.pope gmail.com
 
 
 The following code fails to compile, with error "cannot implicitly convert
 expression (a) of type char[][] to const(char)[][]". However, it appears to be
 a valid operation.
 
 void main() {
     char[][] a;
     string[] b = a;
 }
 
 


Finally! I actually knew about this bug some time ago (2-4 months), when 
I updated some of my D shell scripts to D 2.0. I purposefully didn't 
report since I wanted to see how long it would take until someone else 
did. It seemed such a common problem (I have very little D code written, 
yet I stumbled upon it quickly), that I'm somewhat surprised it took 
this long for someone to report it. Isn't there that many people using 
D2.0 features or what?

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Sep 07 2007
next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:

 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1486

            Summary: Can't implicitly convert char[][] to const(char)[][]
            Product: D
            Version: 2.004
           Platform: PC
         OS/Version: Windows
             Status: NEW
           Severity: normal
           Priority: P2
          Component: DMD
         AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
         ReportedBy: reiner.pope gmail.com


 The following code fails to compile, with error "cannot implicitly 
 convert
 expression (a) of type char[][] to const(char)[][]". However, it 
 appears to be
 a valid operation.

 void main() {
     char[][] a;
     string[] b = a;
 }


 
 Finally! I actually knew about this bug some time ago (2-4 months), when 
 I updated some of my D shell scripts to D 2.0. I purposefully didn't 
 report since I wanted to see how long it would take until someone else 
 did. It seemed such a common problem (I have very little D code written, 
 yet I stumbled upon it quickly), that I'm somewhat surprised it took 
 this long for someone to report it. Isn't there that many people using 
 D2.0 features or what?
 


I'd like to do more in D 2.0, but if the libraries I need aren't ported, 
it's either spend a lot of time porting them myself, or stick with D 1. 
  Right now D1 seems the better option.  But since D1 isn't getting new 
features I suspect there will come a point when D2 gets something so 
utterly cool that it's worth doing whatever it takes to use it, 
including maintaining private 2.0 forks of other people's libraries.  Of 
course by then they might have already ported... so I might as well wait.

--bb
Sep 07 2007
next sibling parent Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 d-bugmail puremagic.com wrote:

 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1486

            Summary: Can't implicitly convert char[][] to const(char)[][]
            Product: D
            Version: 2.004
           Platform: PC
         OS/Version: Windows
             Status: NEW
           Severity: normal
           Priority: P2
          Component: DMD
         AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
         ReportedBy: reiner.pope gmail.com


 The following code fails to compile, with error "cannot implicitly 
 convert
 expression (a) of type char[][] to const(char)[][]". However, it 
 appears to be
 a valid operation.

 void main() {
     char[][] a;
     string[] b = a;
 }


 Finally! I actually knew about this bug some time ago (2-4 months), 
 when I updated some of my D shell scripts to D 2.0. I purposefully 
 didn't report since I wanted to see how long it would take until 
 someone else did. It seemed such a common problem (I have very little 
 D code written, yet I stumbled upon it quickly), that I'm somewhat 
 surprised it took this long for someone to report it. Isn't there that 
 many people using D2.0 features or what?


 
 I'd like to do more in D 2.0, but if the libraries I need aren't ported, 
 it's either spend a lot of time porting them myself, or stick with D 1. 
  Right now D1 seems the better option.  But since D1 isn't getting new 
 features I suspect there will come a point when D2 gets something so 
 utterly cool that it's worth doing whatever it takes to use it, 
 including maintaining private 2.0 forks of other people's libraries.  Of 
 course by then they might have already ported... so I might as well wait.


Oh, and I should also mention that the one thing I really wanted const 
for originally (passing structs as const ref), still crashes the 
compiler in 2.004.

It was demonstrated pretty clearly in the ray-tracer someone ported from 
C++ to D that passing structs by value has a significantly detrimental 
impact on performance.  Passing them by plain ref improves the 
performance but it sends the wrong message to the user and also prevents 
use with non-l-values such as struct literals.

--bb
Sep 07 2007
prev sibling parent reply kris <foo bar.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:
[snip]

 I'd like to do more in D 2.0, but if the libraries I need aren't ported, 
 it's either spend a lot of time porting them myself, or stick with D 1. 
  Right now D1 seems the better option.  But since D1 isn't getting new 
 features I suspect there will come a point when D2 gets something so 
 utterly cool that it's worth doing whatever it takes to use it, 
 including maintaining private 2.0 forks of other people's libraries.  Of 
 course by then they might have already ported... so I might as well wait.


Bill,

If there were a clean way to alias or typedef or macro the D2 const 
features (within D1) then Tango and other libraries would quickly become 
available for D2. In other words, the const features of D2 would have to 
be effectively ignored by the D1 compiler (through whatever means), and 
the use of those features in D2 would have to be 'adjustable' in a quick 
and easy manner (to adhere to syntactic changes). Macros might be ideal 
for such a notion?

Without the ability to retain a single body of source across both D 
versions, and with the syntax of D2 const evolving over time, there's 
little impetus to migrate a library right now
Sep 07 2007
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
kris wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:
 [snip]

 I'd like to do more in D 2.0, but if the libraries I need aren't 
 ported, it's either spend a lot of time porting them myself, or stick 
 with D 1.  Right now D1 seems the better option.  But since D1 isn't 
 getting new features I suspect there will come a point when D2 gets 
 something so utterly cool that it's worth doing whatever it takes to 
 use it, including maintaining private 2.0 forks of other people's 
 libraries.  Of course by then they might have already ported... so I 
 might as well wait.


 
 Bill,
 
 If there were a clean way to alias or typedef or macro the D2 const 
 features (within D1) then Tango and other libraries would quickly become 
 available for D2. In other words, the const features of D2 would have to 
 be effectively ignored by the D1 compiler (through whatever means), and 
 the use of those features in D2 would have to be 'adjustable' in a quick 
 and easy manner (to adhere to syntactic changes). Macros might be ideal 
 for such a notion?


Macros probably won't be a solution because D1 won't have them.

I think we're stuck with version(D_Version2) + string mixin as the 
primary tools.


 Without the ability to retain a single body of source across both D 
 versions, and with the syntax of D2 const evolving over time, there's 
 little impetus to migrate a library right now


As long as you're willing to at least accept patches that provide 
backwards-compatible D2 support, nobody has any business complaining 
about that.

But that doesn't change the fact that "lack of libraries" is still the 
main reason I haven't moved myself over to D2.0 yet. :-)

--bb
Sep 08 2007
parent kris <foo bar.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 kris wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:
 [snip]

 I'd like to do more in D 2.0, but if the libraries I need aren't 
 ported, it's either spend a lot of time porting them myself, or stick 
 with D 1.  Right now D1 seems the better option.  But since D1 isn't 
 getting new features I suspect there will come a point when D2 gets 
 something so utterly cool that it's worth doing whatever it takes to 
 use it, including maintaining private 2.0 forks of other people's 
 libraries.  Of course by then they might have already ported... so I 
 might as well wait.


 Bill,

 If there were a clean way to alias or typedef or macro the D2 const 
 features (within D1) then Tango and other libraries would quickly 
 become available for D2. In other words, the const features of D2 
 would have to be effectively ignored by the D1 compiler (through 
 whatever means), and the use of those features in D2 would have to be 
 'adjustable' in a quick and easy manner (to adhere to syntactic 
 changes). Macros might be ideal for such a notion?


 
 Macros probably won't be a solution because D1 won't have them.


I'm (quietly) suggesting that D1 gain macro support in order to 
effectively migrate libs over to D2, stimulating adoption of D2 itself ;)
Sep 08 2007
prev sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Oops, I didn't meant for my comment to go into the bugzilla.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Sep 08 2007
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 Oops, I didn't meant for my comment to go into the bugzilla.


It looks like someone else decided to be 'helpful' and added it to 
bugzilla for you, sans your sig.  Or are you and Jari-Matti one and the 
same?

--bb
Sep 08 2007
next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:


 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 Oops, I didn't meant for my comment to go into the bugzilla.


 
 It looks like someone else decided to be 'helpful' and added it to
 bugzilla for you, sans your sig.  Or are you and Jari-Matti one and the
 same?
 
 --bb


I believe stuff are hooked up such that bugzilla picks it up as a reply if
it contains the bugzilla part of the subject.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Sep 08 2007
parent Jari-Matti =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:


 Bill Baxter wrote:
 

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 Oops, I didn't meant for my comment to go into the bugzilla.


 
 It looks like someone else decided to be 'helpful' and added it to
 bugzilla for you, sans your sig.  Or are you and Jari-Matti one and the
 same?
 
 --bb


 
 I believe stuff are hooked up such that bugzilla picks it up as a reply if
 it contains the bugzilla part of the subject.


Erm, an user id bug? I swear I didn't do anything :)
Sep 09 2007
prev sibling parent reply Jari-Matti =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:


 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 Oops, I didn't meant for my comment to go into the bugzilla.


 
 It looks like someone else decided to be 'helpful' and added it to
 bugzilla for you, sans your sig.  Or are you and Jari-Matti one and the
 same?


Heh, wtf? I would definitely want to know whether this is a D issue
tracker "feature" or if my bugzilla email account has been compromised. I
haven't used bugzilla lately so this cannot even be an accident.
Sep 09 2007
parent "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
"Jari-Matti Mäkelä" <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> wrote in message 
news:fc0uip$1s8p$1 digitalmars.com...

 Bill Baxter wrote:


 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 Oops, I didn't meant for my comment to go into the bugzilla.






<snip>

 Heh, wtf? I would definitely want to know whether this is a D issue
 tracker "feature" or if my bugzilla email account has been compromised. I
 haven't used bugzilla lately so this cannot even be an accident.


There is indeed a feature whereby replies to Bugzilla posts on the newsgroup 
are automatically relayed back onto Bugzilla.

But it certainly shouldn't be attaching the wrong user ID to them.  Maybe we 
need to talk to Brad about this....

Stewart.
Sep 10 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1486





------- Comment #2 from brunodomedeiros+bugz gmail.com  2008-04-28 19:12 -------
This works in the latest versions. Please confirm and close the bug.

Other related cases still remain buggy though, see #2056.


--
Apr 28 2008
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1486


brunodomedeiros+bugz gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Comment #3 from brunodomedeiros+bugz gmail.com  2008-09-01 18:03 -------
It's definitely fixed.


--
Sep 01 2008