[dmd-beta] dmd 1.065 and 2.050 beta

[Sönke Ludwig]

  Hm.. while it makes sense that technically an immutable(X[]) is not an 
input range for the mentioned reason, practically it does not make sense 
not to allow such arrays in functions like startsWith. Apart from the 
obscure range related cause, there is no obvious reason why this should 
be the case. For any non-expert D user I would expect this to be very 
confusing and annoying for the rest. So well, for me looking from the 
outside, this still looks like a regression although technically it 
maybe is not.

Am 27.10.2010 22:58, schrieb David Simcha:
> This is not a regression.  The example code you posted was never 
> supposed to work, but relied on bugs in DMD to work nonetheless.  An 
> immutable(char[]) is not an input range since you can't call 
> popFront() on it.  You used to be able to because of Bug 3534 
> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3534).  I added code to 
> Phobos to explicitly disable this, so that until 3534 gets fixed 
> people avoid writing code that relies on it.
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Sönke Ludwig 
> <ludwig at informatik.uni-luebeck.de 
> <mailto:ludwig at informatik.uni-luebeck.de>> wrote:
>
>      There seems to be a regression in std.algorithm.startsWith. With
>     2.049 this still worked:
>
>     invariant string s = "Hello, World!";
>     bool res = s.startsWith("Hello");
>
>     now the template cannot be matched anymore. Remove the invariant
>     and it works.
>
>     Am 27.10.2010 21:13, schrieb Walter Bright:
>
>         Fix is uploaded.
>
>         Don Clugston wrote:
>
>             On 27 October 2010 16:50, Stephan Dilly <Dilly at funatics.de
>             <mailto:Dilly at funatics.de>> wrote:
>
>                 On 27.10.2010 16:14, Don Clugston wrote:
>
>                     On 27 October 2010 15:29, Stephan
>                     Dilly<Dilly at funatics.de
>                     <mailto:Dilly at funatics.de>>  wrote:
>
>                         On 27.10.2010 14:51, Stephan Dilly wrote:
>
>                                 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd1beta.zip
>                                 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip
>
>                             1) the client still says it is version 2.049
>
>                             2) there seems to be a regression with
>                             pure opCall methods introduced.
>                             The
>                             following code used to build with dmd2049
>                             but now does not:
>
>
>                             struct Foo
>                             {
>                               static Foo opCall(in Foo _f) pure
>                               {
>                                   return Foo;
>                               }
>                             }
>
>                             instead the compiler issues the following
>                             error:
>                             "Error: struct bug.Foo no size yet for
>                             forward reference"
>
>                             the workaround would be to remove the pure
>                             but that is no option for my
>                             codebase full of pure opCalls.
>
>
>                             regards,
>                               Stephan
>
>                         Ok to be fair, this is the correct code that
>                         works in dmd2049 and does
>                         not
>                         in the beta:
>
>                         struct Foo
>                         {
>                           static Foo opCall(in Foo _f) pure
>                           {
>                               return _f;
>                           }
>                         }
>
>                     That is happening because in mtype.c, line 5013,
>                     it's trying to work
>                     out which form of purity the function is. It can't
>                     do this for a
>                     struct, until it knows if the struct has any
>                     pointer members. This is
>                     a problem if it's a member function.
>                     I don't know if it really needs to determine
>                     purity level so early on.
>                     _______________________________________________
>                     dmd-beta mailing list
>                     dmd-beta at puremagic.com <mailto:dmd-beta at puremagic.com>
>                     http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>
>                 I don't know either ;)
>                 Does that mean that static pure opCalls wont be
>                 possible from now on ?
>
>
>             Your code should continue to work. It's a regression.
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         dmd-beta mailing list
>         dmd-beta at puremagic.com <mailto:dmd-beta at puremagic.com>
>         http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     dmd-beta mailing list
>     dmd-beta at puremagic.com <mailto:dmd-beta at puremagic.com>
>     http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101027/226d1729/attachment.html>