dmd 1.046 and 2.031 releases

[Don]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:08:23 -0400, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> 
>> In this case, I think bearophile's right: it's just a problem with 
>> range propagation of the ?: operator. I think the compiler should be 
>> required to do the semantics analysis for single expressions. Not 
>> more, not less.
> 
> Why?  What is the benefit of keeping track of the range of integral 
> variables inside an expression, to eliminate a cast?  I don't think it's 
> worth it.  As far as I know, the ?: is the only expression where this 
> can happen.  You will get cries of inconsistency when the compiler 
> doesn't allow:
> 
> ubyte foo(uint x)
> {
>   if(x < 256)
>      return x;
>   return 0;
> }
> 
> -Steve
Already happens. This works:

ubyte foo(uint n)
{
   return true ? 255 : n;
}

And this fails:

ubyte boo(uint n)
{
   if (true) return 255;
   else return n;
}