dmd 2.063 beta 5

[Manu]

On 23 May 2013 19:05, Don <turnyourkidsintocash at nospam.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 20:36:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
>>
>> Join the dmd beta mailing list to keep up with the betas. This one is
>> pretty much good to go, unless something disastrous crops up.
>>
>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/**dmd2beta.zip<http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip>
>>
>> Remaining regressions:
>>
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/**buglist.cgi?query_format=**
>> advanced&bug_severity=**regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_**
>> status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=**REOPENED<http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED>
>>
>
> NO NO NO NO. I am violently opposed to this release.
>
> This beta contains the worst language misfeature of all time. It's
> silently snuck in under the guise of a bugfix.
>

Side note, it's so funny how I can clearly hear everybody's voice and
inflections when reading the NG now!
This post in particular :)

struct S
> {
>     const int x = 7;
>     int y;
> }
>
> In previous releases, S.x was always 7.
> But now, if you write
>
> S s = S(5);
>
> then x gets changed to 5.
> This means that the const variable x has been initialized TWICE!
>
> This new behaviour is counter-intuitive and introduces a horrible
> inconsistency.
>
> This is totally different to what happens with module constructors (you
> get a compile error if you try to set a const global if it already has an
> initializer). Likewise, everywhere else in the language, when you see a
> const variable with an initializer, the initializer gives its value.
>
>
> I think the only possible solution is to make it an error to provide a
> const or immutable member with an initializer.
>
> If you are providing an initializer, you surely meant to make it 'static
> const', and that is certainly true of all existing usages of it.
>
> As far as I can tell, this new feature exists only to create bugs. No use
> cases for it have been given. I cannot imagine a case where using this
> feature would not be a bug.
>
>
> Please do not release this beta.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d-announce/attachments/20130523/73eeac80/attachment-0001.html>