www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 8372] New: -property is broken

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8372

           Summary: -property is broken
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: timon.gehr gmx.ch


--- Comment #0 from timon.gehr gmx.ch 2012-07-10 13:13:45 PDT ---
The following code fails to compile with DMD 2.059 -property:

 property int delegate() foo(){ return ()=>2; }
 property int bar(){ return 2; }
int baz(){ return 2; }

static assert(foo()==2);
static assert(!is(typeof(bar())));
static assert(baz==2);

All static assertions should compile and pass.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 10 2012
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8372


Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |jmdavisProg gmx.com
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE


--- Comment #1 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> 2012-07-10 13:23:33
PDT ---
If -property does strict property enforcement like it's supposed to,

static assert(baz==2);

should fail to compile, because baz is not a property. The others should indeed
pass as they are.

Regardless, this is a duplicate of two bugs: bug# 4183 and bug# 8162

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 4183 ***

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 10 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8372


timon.gehr gmx.ch changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|DUPLICATE                   |


--- Comment #2 from timon.gehr gmx.ch 2012-07-10 13:25:44 PDT ---
This is not a dup of issue 4183

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 10 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8372



--- Comment #3 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> 2012-07-10 13:26:47
PDT ---
How so? Your first example is the same as bug# 4183, the second one is an
example of bug# 8162, and your third example is invalid.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 10 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8372



--- Comment #4 from timon.gehr gmx.ch 2012-07-10 13:33:51 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)

 How so? Your first example is the same as bug# 4183,


bug# 4183 does not mention the -property flag.


 the second one is an example of bug# 8162,


bug# 8162 does not mention the -property flag.


 and your third example is invalid.


The third example is valid.

I assume -property is supposed to implement the correct  property semantics
without breaking old code. If I'm wrong I can close this issue and re-submit
the
third example.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 10 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8372



--- Comment #5 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> 2012-07-10 13:46:37
PDT ---

 bug# 4183 does not mention the -property flag.


On re-reading, I see that you're right on that, but it's really the same bug.



 bug# 8162 does not mention the -property flag.


Yes it does. It's even in the title.


 The third example is valid.


No, it's not, because baz is being used as a property when it's not. -property
should flag that as an error, and it does.


 I assume -property is supposed to implement the correct  property semantics


without breaking old code.

-property was introduced precisely because introducing strict property
enforcement _would_ break code. Otherwise, it would have just been put straight
into the compiler. The whole idea is to introduce -property first so that
people have a chance to fix their code before it becomes normal functionality
and to also give the compiler a chance to iron out any bugs with property
enforcement. It's the same with override except that it was introduced with -w
rather than with its own flag.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 10 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8372


timon.gehr gmx.ch changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE


--- Comment #6 from timon.gehr gmx.ch 2012-07-10 13:49:59 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)

 bug# 4183 does not mention the -property flag.


 
 On re-reading, I see that you're right on that, but it's really the same bug.
 
 

 bug# 8162 does not mention the -property flag.


 
 Yes it does. It's even in the title.
 


You are right, it actually mentions it. My bad.


 The third example is valid.


 
 No, it's not, because baz is being used as a property when it's not. -property
 should flag that as an error, and it does.
 


It is not used as a property. Anyway, let's continue that discussion on the NG.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 8162 ***

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 10 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8372


Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |doob me.com


--- Comment #7 from Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> 2012-07-10 23:33:09 PDT ---
I would like the third example to be legal.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 10 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8372



--- Comment #8 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> 2012-07-10 23:36:15
PDT ---

 I would like the third example to be legal.


That would not be strict property enforcement, which is what -property is
designed to test for.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 10 2012
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8372



--- Comment #9 from Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> 2012-07-11 02:51:28 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)

 That would not be strict property enforcement, which is what -property is
 designed to test for.


Then I don't want strict property enforcement.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 11 2012