DMD 1.035 and 2.019 releases

[Pablo Ripolles]

little typo:
writefln("f(%1$s) = %2$%", x, y);      --->     writefln("f(%1$s) = %2$s", x, y);

it doesn't compile anyway!

Walter, don't you think that the ctor overloading should be on "static opCall" better than *any* opCall?


Pablo Ripolles Wrote:

> Sorry, but this is already somewhere else, I don't know why but I get my responses out of thread...
> 
> Walter Bright Wrote:
> 
> > Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> > > Speaking of syntactical ambiguity, the expression
> > > 
> > > S(1, 2, 3)
> > > 
> > > can, right now, have one of three meanings:
> > > 
> > > 1. A struct literal for struct S
> > > 2. A call to S's static opCall
> > > 3. An instantiation of S and a call to its ctor
> > > 
> > > Even if opCall goes away, we'll still be left with the ambiguity of 
> > > struct literal vs. ctor.  I'd really, really like to hear Walter's view 
> > > on this but he has responded neither to the thread I posted on 
> > > digitalmars.D nor the bugzilla ticket 
> > > (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2170).
> > 
> > If there's any constructor defined for S, then S(args) is a constructor 
> > call.
> > 
> > If there's any opCall defined for S, then S(args) is an opCall call.
> 
> shouldn't this be so only for the static opCall's?
> 
> shouldn't this be possible?
> 
> 
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> 
> import std.stdio;
> 
> 
> struct Parabola
> {
>     float a_;
> 
>     this(float a)
>     {
>         a_ = a;
>     }
> 
>     float opCall(float x)
>     {
>         return a_ * x*x;
>     }
> }
> 
> 
> void main()
> {
>     Parabola f;
>     float x, y;
> 
>     f = Parabola(1.0);
>     x = 2.0;
>     y = f(x);
> 
>     writefln("f(%1$s) = %2$%", x, y);
> }
> 
> 
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > 
> > Otherwise, it's a struct literal.
>