digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 633] New: Enum promotion rules are not specified
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (29/29) Dec 02 2006 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=633
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/7) Nov 14 2008 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=633
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (9/9) Dec 31 2008 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=633
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=633 Summary: Enum promotion rules are not specified Product: D Version: 0.175 Platform: All URL: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/type.html OS/Version: All Status: NEW Keywords: spec Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: www.digitalmars.com AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com ReportedBy: smjg iname.com OtherBugsDependingO 511 nThis: The spec gives promotion rules for when typedef'd values are combined by arithmetical or other operations. As it happens, the spec needs to be clearer - see issue 632. However, it fails to give enums the same treatment. So the behaviour of these types when combined is undefined. We need to incorporate information on how these are treated into the spec. My opinion on this is the same as for typedefs - that the lowest common denominator principle is the best. For further commentary and rationale, please see http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=44821 Whatever we do, we must also make sure it's unambiguous what happens in the cases of enums of typedefs or vice versa. --
Dec 02 2006
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=633 I see that the spec now says "typedef or enum" where previously it just said "typedef", thus reducing this to issue 632. So should this be marked as a dupe (and the summary of that one changed to say "Typedef/enum promotions spec ambiguous"), a dependent or what? --
Nov 14 2008
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=633 smjg iname.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |DUPLICATE *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 632 *** --
Dec 31 2008