[Issue 270] Compiler allows and crashes on typedefs of "immediate"-function types

[Walter Bright]

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> d-bugmail at puremagic.com wrote:
>>> Static arrays (as the first example) now work correctly, but there is 
>>> still the
>>> same bug with dynamic arrays. (Associative Arrays seem to work 
>>> correctly.)
>>
>> Please do not reopen bugs that are fixed. If the bug example works, 
>> then it is fixed. If a new example fails, then it is a new bug, not an 
>> old one.
> 
> Hum, I was wondering about that, but then what constitutes a new and 
> "old" example?
> In other words, what are the example(s) that are part of the current bug?:
> Just the one(s) in the description (with possible erratas)?
> Or any example presented *before* an issue is marked as resolved? And if 
> so, do examples where the code is not listed inline but instead is 
> linked to an external location (such as DStress link) count as well?

As long as the examples are there or linked to before it is resolved, 
they are part of the current bug. If they are added after, then they are 
new bugs.

The reasons for this are bugs may appear to be related, but compilers 
can be pretty complicated, and different examples may expose completely 
different problems. It gets messy to try to mark a bug issue as "half 
resolved."

A corollary is that if a bug report has a small canonical demonstration 
example for it, there's no need to add any more.

> 
> I ask this for future reference, and to know what should be done with 
> bugs 209 and 80:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=209
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=80
>