[Issue 1610] New: Enum.stringof is int, not the name of the enum

Oct 24, 2007

d-bugmail

Oct 24, 2007

Ary Manzana

Jul 22, 2008

Jul 22, 2008

Jul 22, 2008

Jul 22, 2008

Jul 23, 2008

Jul 23, 2008

Jul 23, 2008

Dec 08, 2008

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1610 Summary: Enum.stringof is int, not the name of the enum Product: D Version: 2.007 Platform: PC OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com ReportedBy: andrei@metalanguage.com import std.stdio; enum ABC { a, b, c } void main() { writeln(ABC.stringof); } // prints "int" This causes major issues in reflective and serialization code. The .stringof should evaluate to the name of the enum, e.g. "ABC". --

d-bugmail@puremagic.com escribió: > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1610 > > Summary: Enum.stringof is int, not the name of the enum > Product: D > Version: 2.007 > Platform: PC > OS/Version: Linux > Status: NEW > Severity: normal > Priority: P2 > Component: DMD > AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com > ReportedBy: andrei@metalanguage.com > > > import std.stdio; > enum ABC { a, b, c } > void main() { writeln(ABC.stringof); } // prints "int" > > This causes major issues in reflective and serialization code. The .stringof > should evaluate to the name of the enum, e.g. "ABC". > > lol, I just discovered the same thing yesterday. I found out you can also do this: void foo() { int x = typeof(ABC).a; // same as ABC.a int y = typeof(ABC).init; // y = 0 } The compiler also allows me to do this: enum ABCInit { a, b, c, init } Now if I do: void foo() { int y = typeof(ABC).init; // y = 3 } So an addition of a field "init" could potentialy and silently introduce bugs in the application. Although I think it's rare that someone would want to define an "init" property for an enum type (or for a class, or struct), I think the compiler should disallow this (same behaviour as trying to redefine the "sizeof", "alignof", etc., properties).

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1610 ------- Comment #2 from moritzwarning@web.de 2008-07-22 12:51 ------- I have to deal with this problem in a template function that is used with a lot of different enum types (by some other bigger templates). But not handled enum types hit a static assert. I wrote different template functions before but hit some limitations that forced me to put everything in the same function using static ifs. Because T.stringof is almost always "int", I have a hard time to find out what enum is not handled. I hope this problem will be addressed soon. --

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1610 shro8822@vandals.uidaho.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OS/Version|Linux |All Version|2.007 |1.033 ------- Comment #3 from shro8822@vandals.uidaho.edu 2008-07-22 13:26 ------- this issue is also in latest V1 so switching the version to that --

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:26:13 +0400, <d-bugmail@puremagic.com> wrote: > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1610 > > > shro8822@vandals.uidaho.edu changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > OS/Version|Linux |All > Version|2.007 |1.033 > > > > > ------- Comment #3 from shro8822@vandals.uidaho.edu 2008-07-22 13:26 ------- > this issue is also in latest V1 so switching the version to that > > I thought version is meant to be the *earliest* version known to have the bug, not the latest one....

Reply to Koroskin, > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:26:13 +0400, <d-bugmail@puremagic.com> wrote: > >> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1610 >> >> shro8822@vandals.uidaho.edu changed: >> >> What |Removed |Added >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------- >> OS/Version|Linux |All >> Version|2.007 |1.033 >> ------- Comment #3 from shro8822@vandals.uidaho.edu 2008-07-22 13:26 >> ------- >> this issue is also in latest V1 so switching the version to that > I thought version is meant to be the *earliest* version known to have > the bug, not the latest one.... > Setting the version to the latest minor version shows active interest and that the bug hasn't magically disappeared. OTOH, IMHO the oldest major version that the bug should be fixed in should be tagged to indicate that.

BCS wrote: > Reply to Koroskin, > >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:26:13 +0400, <d-bugmail@puremagic.com> wrote: >> >>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1610 >>> >>> shro8822@vandals.uidaho.edu changed: >>> >>> What |Removed |Added >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ------- >>> OS/Version|Linux |All >>> Version|2.007 |1.033 >>> ------- Comment #3 from shro8822@vandals.uidaho.edu 2008-07-22 13:26 >>> ------- >>> this issue is also in latest V1 so switching the version to that >> I thought version is meant to be the *earliest* version known to have >> the bug, not the latest one.... >> > > Setting the version to the latest minor version shows active interest and that the bug hasn't magically disappeared. OTOH, IMHO the oldest major version that the bug should be fixed in should be tagged to indicate that. You can show interest just by posting a comment saying "halloo! this bug has been around since version 0.123, and it's still there in 1.latest. Any chance for a fix?". --bb

July 23, 2008

Re: [Issue 1610] Enum.stringof is int, not the name of the enum

Posted by Brad Roberts
in reply to Bill Baxter

Permalink

Brad Roberts

Posted in reply to Bill Baxter

Permalink

Bill Baxter wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> Reply to Koroskin,
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:26:13 +0400, <d-bugmail@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1610
>>>>
>>>> shro8822@vandals.uidaho.edu changed:
>>>>
>>>> What    |Removed                     |Added
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -------
>>>> OS/Version|Linux                       |All
>>>> Version|2.007                       |1.033
>>>> ------- Comment #3 from shro8822@vandals.uidaho.edu  2008-07-22 13:26
>>>> -------
>>>> this issue is also in latest V1 so switching the version to that
>>> I thought version is meant to be the *earliest* version known to have the  bug, not the latest one....
>>>
>>
>> Setting the version to the latest minor version shows active interest and that the bug hasn't magically disappeared. OTOH, IMHO the oldest major version that the bug should be fixed in should be tagged to indicate that.
> 
> You can show interest just by posting a comment saying "halloo! this bug has been around since version 0.123, and it's still there in 1.latest. Any chance for a fix?".
> 
> --bb

On the other hand, this is one of the few cases of changing the version that is probably a good idea.  It was reported against 2.x and has been shifted over to 1.x.  That it's not a 2.x specific bug is useful info.

Otherwise, Bill is right.  Do NOT shift a version number to a higher version just to show interest as thats not helpful.  A ping and a note that it's still broken is sufficient.

Later,
Brad

Reply to Brad, > On the other hand, this is one of the few cases of changing the > version that is probably a good idea. It was reported against 2.x and > has been shifted over to 1.x. That it's not a 2.x specific bug is > useful info. > > Otherwise, Bill is right. Do NOT shift a version number to a higher > version just to show interest as thats not helpful. A ping and a note > that it's still broken is sufficient. > > Later, > Brad maybe there should be 4 versions [ :b ] reported and latest-verified for v1 and v2

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1610 bugzilla@digitalmars.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED ------- Comment #4 from bugzilla@digitalmars.com 2008-12-08 00:53 ------- Fixed in DMD 1.037 and 2.021 --

Forums