[Issue 3170] Forward reference of nested class fails if outer class is not plain

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3170


Stewart Gordon <smjg at iname.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Version|2.031                       |1.045




--- Comment #9 from Stewart Gordon <smjg at iname.com>  2009-07-15 09:37:07 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
>> No, the policy here is that
>> - we set the _oldest_ version in which the bug has been witnessed
> 
> That turns out to be completely useless, actually.  It'd be _so_ 
> much better if there were only 3 versions: 1.x, 2.x, both.

Maybe.  But until and unless this change happens, setting a bug that's present
in both lines to a 2.x version is misleading, since by current policy it gives
the impression that it's a (DM)D2-specific bug.

> For one thing, it means that any search for "1.x bugs" becomes invalid every
> time there's a new compiler version!

How do you work that out?

>> - if a bug exists in both 1.x and 2.x, the 1.x version is set
> 
> That used to work well, when the compilers were almost identical. We're now
> getting a lot of bugs which are 1.x only.

Like what?

> Adding keywords is extremely helpful.

Agreed.

(In reply to comment #8)
> Tim is right and I second the opinion that people that are just playing
> bugzilla cops for the sake of it should not, if they do not understand the
> bigger picture.

Well, nobody here is playing a bugzilla cop for the sake of it.  I for one hold
that it's practically better if the information is accurate and not misleading
(see my response to Don above).

> Walter made some changes to how forward references are handled in the 2.031
> source. The intent of the bug report is to say that _after_ those changes,
> there are still issues.

The fact is that the bug exists in the D1 line, and as such the version field
should reflect this fact.  Maybe Walter'll tell us (or someone'll study the
code and find out) that, because of these changes, the underlying cause is
different and thus the fix is different.  But then it's a matter of writing the
fix for each (and considering whether this should be two separate bug reports),
not of pretending it doesn't exist in 1.x.

> Also, because according to Walter, forward ref bugs are tricky, we 
> probably _do not_ want the 1.x code base fixed, since the "fixes" 
> could have bad side effects.

Possibly, but it's not up to you to decide for him.

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