Thread overview |
---|
September 26, 2006 [Issue 373] New: Spec problems with TypeInfo: error and omission. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=373 Summary: Spec problems with TypeInfo: error and omission. Product: D Version: 0.167 Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Keywords: spec Severity: major Priority: P1 Component: www.digitalmars.com AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com ReportedBy: brunodomedeiros+bugz@gmail.com In Functions (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/function.html), Variadic Functions With Type Info, there is an example of a variadic function, but there is an error in the FOO clause: else if (_arguments[i] == typeid(FOO)) { FOO f = *cast(FOO*)_argptr; ... This if clause will match not only FOO (should be called 'Foo' for style consistency, btw), but any kind of class and interface, since apparently TypeInfo's equality('==') operator tests for equality of "archetype", and all classes and even interfaces are all part of the same archetype (class). Additionally, this TypeInfo comparison behavior was all inferred empirically: there is nowhere (AFAIK) in the spec that explains how TypeInfo's are to be compared, and consequently what are the effects of 'is' and '==' comparisons. (Please fix this as well.) -- |
November 25, 2006 [Issue 373] Spec problems with TypeInfo: error and omission. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to d-bugmail | http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=373 bugzilla@digitalmars.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED ------- Comment #1 from bugzilla@digitalmars.com 2006-11-25 03:50 ------- Fixed DMD 0.175 -- |
November 28, 2006 [Issue 373] Spec problems with TypeInfo: error and omission. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to d-bugmail | http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=373 ------- Comment #2 from brunodomedeiros+bugz@gmail.com 2006-11-28 06:22 ------- The only doc change I see is the FOO->Foo consistency change, which is not what this bug is about. Did you forget to roll more doc updates or was that just it? -- |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation