stupid errors

[Derek Parnell]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:44:29 +0000 (UTC), debugger wrote:

> Derek Parnell says...
>>> this kind of bug is @!*$ and I am not interested in wasting my time
>>I just tried this using dmd v.150 and Windows XP and it works fine.
> 
> Lucky you. But I am really not interested in wasting my time by working in a
> buggy language nor by cutting my source down to the essential raising that bug.

Of course you mean 'buggy compiler' and not 'buggy language', but that
aside for now ... dmd v0.150 is *BETA* --- it is expected to have bugs in
it still and that's why we are trying to find and fix them. 

If you don't want to help fix the compiler then fine, go away and come back
later when other's have done the good deeds. 

My earlier reply was trying to say that the compiler is working in at least
one environment so I assume you are not working in Windows or not using
v0.150, or your code example is faulty because it doesn't exhibit the
problem you reported. 
 
> In fact the control flow took even the wrong path:
> 
> switch( value){
> case SOMECONST:
> assert( false); // not executed
> break;
> case SOMEOTHERCONST:
> assert( value == SOMEOTHERCONST); // failed
> }

If you actually want this resolved, try showing us a complete (compilable)
example that exhibits the problem. Until then, I'm assuming you have made a
coding error rather than dmd is at fault. Prove otherwise.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocracy!"
21/03/2006 12:21:42 PM