On 06/25/2012 05:52 PM, Namespace wrote:
> On Monday, 25 June 2012 at 15:39:19 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 06/25/2012 02:18 PM, Namespace wrote:
>>> Fine. But nothing of them explain the Stack overflow if i add an
>>> additional method or disable/add an additional ctor.
>>
>> It does not have to be explained: it is a compiler bug.
>
> Then it will take months or years until it is fixed ... too bad.
>

Many of them get fixed quite fast if they are reported properly.

> And that Ref!(Foo) rf = new Foo(); ends even with "Stack overflow" and
> Ref!(Foo) rf2 = new Ref!(Foo)(new Foo()); not has the same explanation
> "Compiler Bug", hm?
>

It is always a compiler bug if compilation crashes.

> Many of them get fixed quite fast if they are reported properly.

But since I have had other experiences. But no matter.

> It is always a compiler bug if compilation crashes.

Only that a simple "@disable this(typeof(null));" fails, is crap. Because so you cannot test at compile time for such assignments.

My fault, Ref!(Foo) rf = new Foo(); work as expected.