Thread overview | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
December 05, 2007 [Issue 1715] New: Template specialization checks for equality rather than convertibility | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1715 Summary: Template specialization checks for equality rather than convertibility Product: D Version: 2.008 Platform: PC OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Keywords: rejects-valid, spec Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com ReportedBy: dhasenan@gmail.com This is related to #1714: the workaround for 1714 is prevented by this, and vice versa. When specializing a template based on the template parameters of its argument, a check is performed for equality, not convertibility. For every other type specialization, a check is performed for convertibility rather than equality. (Equality would be redundant in those situations, and pretty much every situation.) Example: --- class Foo(T){} class Bar : Foo!(int) {} template GetFooArg (T : Foo!(U), U) { alias U GetFooArg; } static assert (is (GetFooArg!(Foo!(int)) == int)); // works static assert (is (GetFooArg!(Bar) == int)); // false pragma (msg, GetFooArg!(Bar).stringof); // template instance GetFooArg!(Bar) // does not match any template declaration --- -- |
September 03, 2010 [Issue 1715] Template specialization checks for equality rather than convertibility | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to d-bugmail | http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1715 Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |patch CC| |clugdbug@yahoo.com.au --- Comment #1 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> 2010-09-03 11:26:31 PDT --- The patch in bug 4173 fixes this. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- |
September 12, 2010 [Issue 1715] Template specialization checks for equality rather than convertibility | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to d-bugmail | http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1715 Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |bugzilla@digitalmars.com Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #2 from Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com> 2010-09-11 17:52:32 PDT --- http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmd/changeset/675 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- |
September 16, 2010 [Issue 1715] Template specialization checks for equality rather than convertibility | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to d-bugmail | http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1715 Mike Linford <mike.linford@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mike.linford@gmail.com Resolution|FIXED |INVALID --- Comment #3 from Mike Linford <mike.linford@gmail.com> 2010-09-15 23:52:54 PDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmd/changeset/675 DMD 1.063 gives the same results for the given example and an example in my personal code. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- |
September 16, 2010 [Issue 1715] Template specialization checks for equality rather than convertibility | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to d-bugmail | http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1715 Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|INVALID |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> 2010-09-16 00:09:24 PDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmd/changeset/675 > > DMD 1.063 gives the same results for the given example and an example in my personal code. Yes, of course. Why did you mark this as invalid???? The bug is definitely valid, and it's fixed in the upcoming beta. Please don't do this sort of thing again. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- |
September 16, 2010 [Issue 1715] Template specialization checks for equality rather than convertibility | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to d-bugmail | http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1715 --- Comment #5 from Mike Linford <mike.linford@gmail.com> 2010-09-16 09:34:29 PDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmd/changeset/675 > > > > DMD 1.063 gives the same results for the given example and an example in my personal code. > > Yes, of course. > > Why did you mark this as invalid???? The bug is definitely valid, and it's > fixed in the upcoming beta. > Please don't do this sort of thing again. I guess I'm confused. It's claimed that the bug was resolved, but the latest version has the bug. Since the latest version in fact hasn't resolved the bug, doesn't that mean that the resolution was invalid? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- |
September 17, 2010 [Issue 1715] Template specialization checks for equality rather than convertibility | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to d-bugmail | http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1715 --- Comment #6 from Don <clugdbug@yahoo.com.au> 2010-09-17 01:26:19 PDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmd/changeset/675 > > > > > > DMD 1.063 gives the same results for the given example and an example in my personal code. > > > > Yes, of course. > > > > Why did you mark this as invalid???? The bug is definitely valid, and it's > > fixed in the upcoming beta. > > Please don't do this sort of thing again. > > I guess I'm confused. It's claimed that the bug was resolved, but the latest version has the bug. Since the latest version in fact hasn't resolved the bug, doesn't that mean that the resolution was invalid? 1.063 is not the latest version. (BTW, if the bug was still not fixed, you'd mark it as 'REOPENED' not INVALID). Bugs get marked as fixed when they are fixed in svn, not when a release happens (the inability to distinguish between the two is something I intensely dislike about Bugzilla). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation