www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 5604] New: Clarify whether this is a bug or a feature

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5604

           Summary: Clarify whether this is a bug or a feature
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: Other
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: spec
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: dsimcha yahoo.com


--- Comment #0 from David Simcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> 2011-02-17 08:30:33 PST ---
The following code compiles in 64-bit mode and arguably shouldn't (but arguably
should).  

void main() {
    int[] foo;
    foreach(uint i, elem; foo) {}
}

The index variable into foo is technically a size_t, not a uint.  On the other
hand this is arguably a feature.  The idiomatic way to write a foreach loop is
with implicit variable typing.  The insertion of an explicit type is, IMHO,
equivalent to using an explicit cast, and therefore it arguably should compile.

Personally, I prefer this to be considered a feature rather than a bug, but
either way I think it's important that the spec be clarified, as I've used this
idiom in several places when porting code to 64-bit.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 17 2011
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5604


Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed:

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


--- Comment #1 from Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> 2011-02-17
10:52:26 PST ---
It's a feature, as you can still use uints to index an array in 64 bit code.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 17 2011
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5604


Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> changed:

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


--- Comment #2 from Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> 2011-02-17
11:28:01 PST ---
I really expected this to be a bug.  Because I would expect this to fail:

struct S
{
   int opApply(int delegate(ref size_t idx, ref int val) dg)
   {
     return 0;
   }
}

void main()
{
   S s;
   foreach(uint idx, int val; s) {}
}

i.e. you cannot possibly duplicate this 'feature' for a custom structure.  But
then of course, you cannot duplicate the 'no ref' aspect of the index either.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 17 2011