https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15083

Marc Schütz <schuetzm@gmx.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |schuetzm@gmx.net

--- Comment #1 from Marc Schütz <schuetzm@gmx.net> ---
(In reply to John Colvin from comment #0)
> This uses phobos, but I'm pretty sure typeof should work here so it's a dmd bug.

typeof itself _does_ work, this compiles fine:

pragma(msg, typeof(dirEntries(path, filetype, SpanMode.depth)));
// prints: FilterResult!(f, DirIterator)

But FilteResult is evidently a Voldemort type, and you can't declare a variable of this type. So I believe this is not a bug.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15083

--- Comment #2 from John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Marc Schütz from comment #1)
> (In reply to John Colvin from comment #0)
> > This uses phobos, but I'm pretty sure typeof should work here so it's a dmd bug.
> 
> typeof itself _does_ work, this compiles fine:
> 
> pragma(msg, typeof(dirEntries(path, filetype, SpanMode.depth)));
> // prints: FilterResult!(f, DirIterator)

good point

> But FilteResult is evidently a Voldemort type, and you can't declare a variable of this type. So I believe this is not a bug.

You can definitely declare variables with Voldemort types.

e.g.
auto foo(){ struct S{} return S(); }
void bar(){ typeof(foo()) a; }

is fine.


The problem here is to do with the initialiser.

    typeof(dirEntries(path, filetype, SpanMode.depth)) files = void;

doesn't cause any problems.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15083

--- Comment #3 from Marc Schütz <schuetzm@gmx.net> ---
(In reply to John Colvin from comment #2)
> You can definitely declare variables with Voldemort types.
> 
> e.g.
> auto foo(){ struct S{} return S(); }
> void bar(){ typeof(foo()) a; }
> 
> is fine.
> 

That's not a "real" Voldemort type with a closure; try this instead:

auto foo(){
    int x;
    struct S {
        int baz() { return x; }
    }
    return S();
}
void bar(){ typeof(foo()) a; } // Error: cannot access frame pointer of
xx.foo.S

> 
> The problem here is to do with the initialiser.
> 
> 	typeof(dirEntries(path, filetype, SpanMode.depth)) files = void;
> 
> doesn't cause any problems.

This could either be an oversight (= bug), or it could be intentional. I suspect the latter, because it allows to actually declare a Voldemort variable that is only initialized later.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15083

--- Comment #4 from John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Marc Schütz from comment #3)
> (In reply to John Colvin from comment #2)
> > You can definitely declare variables with Voldemort types.
> > 
> > e.g.
> > auto foo(){ struct S{} return S(); }
> > void bar(){ typeof(foo()) a; }
> > 
> > is fine.
> > 
> 
> That's not a "real" Voldemort type with a closure; try this instead:
> 
> auto foo(){
>     int x;
>     struct S {
>         int baz() { return x; }
>     }
>     return S();
> }
> void bar(){ typeof(foo()) a; } // Error: cannot access frame pointer of
> xx.foo.S

OK, I see what you mean.

> > 
> > The problem here is to do with the initialiser.
> > 
> > 	typeof(dirEntries(path, filetype, SpanMode.depth)) files = void;
> > 
> > doesn't cause any problems.
> 
> This could either be an oversight (= bug), or it could be intentional. I suspect the latter, because it allows to actually declare a Voldemort variable that is only initialized later.

Yes, I think it probably is intentional, or at least not a problem that it's allowed.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15083

RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #5 from RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305@gmail.com> ---
According to Marc Schutz's comments this is not a bug.

--