http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=96


daiphoenix@lycos.com changed:

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




------- Comment #2 from daiphoenix@lycos.com  2006-06-19 09:46 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> Note: If by design one does not want mixins to enable function overloading, then the doc should be clear on that. Specifically, on "If two different mixins are put in the same scope, and each define a declaration with the same name, there is an ambiguity error when the declaration is referenced:", http://www.digitalmars.com/d/mixin.html .

What The Frak!?... What was I thinking, I didn't notice that I quoted the very section of the spec that states quite explicitly that this behaviour is correct, and thus this is not a bug. (Whether the behaviour should or not be allowed, that's another (design) issue)


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=96





------- Comment #3 from bugzilla@digitalmars.com  2006-06-20 02:15 -------
Fixed documentation.


--