http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8402

           Summary: Lambda argument's default value is not taken into
                    account
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: kolos80@bk.ru


--- Comment #0 from Artem Borisovskiy <kolos80@bk.ru> 2012-07-20 05:33:24 PDT ---
The following code does not compile (x.d):

void main()
{
    auto fn = (int x = 0) => x + 1;
    fn();
}

with message: "x.d(4): Error: expected 1 function arguments, not 0"
However, calling fn() with an explicit argument works fine as usual.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8402


Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jmdavisProg@gmx.com


--- Comment #1 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> 2012-07-20 10:27:41 PDT ---
Default arguments with lambda functions don't really make sense given that they're generally only used in one place, that default arguments are _not_ part of the type (they're just inserted at the call site), and that there's no way for lambdas or function pointers to carry default arguments with them. So, the fact that it doesn't compile is a _good_ thing, though it really should give an error for giving a default argument and not just an error at the call site.

This is related to bug# 3646, but I'm not sure if it's strictly speaking a duplicate or not.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8402


Erik Johansson Andersson <exetoc@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |exetoc@gmail.com


--- Comment #2 from Erik Johansson Andersson <exetoc@gmail.com> 2012-08-02 14:27:43 PDT ---
This seems to be relevant:

void function(int i = 0) f = (int i){};
void delegate(int i = 0) g = (int i){};

void main()
{
    f();
    g();
}

The error message is: "Error expected 1 function arguments, not 0", for both f and g.

(In reply to comment #1)
> Default arguments with lambda functions don't really make sense given that they're generally only used in one place, that default arguments are _not_ part of the type (they're just inserted at the call site), and that there's no way for lambdas or function pointers to carry default arguments with them. So, the fact that it doesn't compile is a _good_ thing, though it really should give an error for giving a default argument and not just an error at the call site.
> 
> This is related to bug# 3646, but I'm not sure if it's strictly speaking a duplicate or not.

It did work in 2.059, which was nice, because it allowed libraries like Derelict to provide bindings for C++ libraries like FreeImage, without having to modify the interface in order to take into account potential default arguments which, as of 2.060, isn't the case anymore. Did this old behaviour have any negative effects at all?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8402


timon.gehr@gmx.ch changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |timon.gehr@gmx.ch


--- Comment #3 from timon.gehr@gmx.ch 2012-08-02 17:36:56 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Did this old behaviour have any negative effects at all?

Probably the feature was there by mistake. It was implemented incorrectly. I
think just associating the default arguments with the variable declaration
might
work if something like it should be supported.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8402



--- Comment #4 from Erik Johansson Andersson <exetoc@gmail.com> 2012-08-02 20:04:56 PDT ---
I was referring to variables (and not literals) in the latter part of my comment, whereas you probably didn't. If that is indeed the case, then disregard what I said.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8402



--- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> 2012-08-04 10:11:15 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The following code does not compile (x.d):
> 
> void main()
> {
>     auto fn = (int x = 0) => x + 1;
>     fn();
> }
> 
> with message: "x.d(4): Error: expected 1 function arguments, not 0"
> However, calling fn() with an explicit argument works fine as usual.

The function pointer `fn` is not a lambda itself, so cannot have default
argument.
If it is allowed:

    auto fn = (int x = 0) => x + 1;
    fn();   // returns 1

    fn = (int x = 1) => x + 1;
    fn();   // returns 1 or 2?

What is returned by the 2nd call of fn? I cannot imagine it.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8402


Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE


--- Comment #6 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> 2012-08-04 10:12:29 PDT ---
This issue is a part of bug 3866.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 3866 ***

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------