digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 9423] New: Missed conversion of lambda literal with ref argument
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (27/27) Jan 29 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9423
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (32/32) Jan 29 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9423
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/13) Jan 29 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9423
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (8/14) Jan 30 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9423
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9423 Summary: Missed conversion of lambda literal with ref argument Product: D Version: D2 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com ReportedBy: bearophile_hugs eml.cc void foo(int delegate(ref int[1]) spam) {} void main() { foo((ref int[1] x) => 0); // OK foo(x => 0); // Error } DMD 2.062alpha gives: test.d(4): Error: function test.foo (int delegate(ref int[1u]) spam)(null) is not callable using argument types (void) test.d(4): Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (__lambda3) of type int delegate(int[1u] x) pure nothrow safe to int delegate(ref int[1u]) -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 29 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9423 Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |pull Platform|x86 |All OS/Version|Windows |All Severity|normal |enhancement When I fixed bug7705, I decided that lambda inference does not infer parameter storage classes. Instead, users should specify `ref`/`out`/`lazy` explicitly. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/809/files#L1R496 Because, explicit specifying of `ref` in call site is sometimes required in newsgroup. void foo(ref int x) {} int n; foo(ref n); // not allowed in today So, current behavior is intended. You should write it as follows: void foo(int delegate(ref int[1]) spam) {} void main() { foo((ref x) => 0); // OK } However, I cannot say clearly whether it's right behavior. I think that the opinion "parameter storage classes should be inferred" is also worth. Therefore, I'll mark this as 'enhancement'. ===== A pull to implement this feature: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1580 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 29 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9423Therefore, I'll mark this as 'enhancement'. ===== A pull to implement this feature: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1580Thank you Hara. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 29 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9423 A discussion thread, the answers are mixed: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mixmakdqfmaznmmnizux forum.dlang.org A comment from Timon Gehr:BTW, the pull does not contain a test for the case void foo(int delegate(int) dg){ ... } // 1 void foo(int delegate(ref int) dg){ ... } // 2 void main(){ foo(x=>0); } // call 1-- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 30 2013