[dmd-beta] D2 2.058 alpha

David Simcha dsimcha at gmail.com
Wed Feb 8 11:50:05 PST 2012

I created a new bug in Bugzilla for the error message, since a specific
case was resolved and it's really a completely different issue.

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Don Clugston <dclugston at googlemail.com>wrote:

> On 8 February 2012 18:57, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 08, 2012 18:15:30 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> >> But if you put the "static if"-statement after all fields, shouldn't
> that be
> >> enough to have the full size of the struct. Of course it could be hard
> for
> >> the compiler to know that there are no fields after the "static
> >> if"-statement. Maybe the compiler could calculate the size
> incrementally.
> >
> > That could cause big problems if the static if weren't after all of the
> member
> > variables. You could have multiple static ifs, each of which ended up
> with a
> > different size for the type, if there are member variables declared
> between
> > them. We _could_ make it give an error if you then added a member
> variable
> > after such a static if, but that's probably getting a bit complicated,
> since
> > more state is necessary. So, it's probably better to just disallow such
> static
> > ifs.
> More specifically, it's not static if which is the problem, it's that
> .tupleof shouldn't be legal until all members have been declared.
> BTW if a static if body doesn't contain any declarations, there's not
> much it can contain that's meaningful!
> I think that based on the error message issue, the bug should stay
> open, but not as a regression.
> _______________________________________________
> dmd-beta mailing list
> dmd-beta at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/dmd-beta/attachments/20120208/5acc7499/attachment.html>

More information about the dmd-beta mailing list