Code behaves incorrectly if it is compiled in std.functional

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:49:00 +0000, Marc Schütz wrote:

> On Saturday, 6 June 2015 at 15:12:38 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> what should i check to see what is *really* allowed, why two storage
>> classes allowed with one combination and not allowed with another?
> 
> Well, you can look at the compiler's source...
> 
> But I'm sure this is not the answer you wanted ;-)

sure. now i'm completely lost. i shouldn't use DMD to find out things, 
yet i have to use DMD to find out things.

ok, let's be serious. what i'm trying to say is that there should be not 
only grammar with comments inside it here and there, but the document 
that explains "what is what", what's compatible with what and so on. the 
"specs" in the meaning that one can point to it and say: "this is how it 
is supposed to be. now fix your code". or "now let's fix the compiler."

the specs where no "undefined behavior" words are used, and no "it's left 
to compiler implementer to decide". (but "look at DMDFE source" is 
allowed ;-).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20150607/59471f06/attachment.sig>