http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=204

           Summary: Improve error message.
           Product: D
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: dawid.ciezarkiewicz@gmail.com


map.d(165): cannot create instance of abstract class Droid

Please add info about method which isn't implemented yet: "because XXX is abstract" or smth. If many - the first one is good enought.


-- 

d-bugmail@puremagic.com wrote:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=204
> 
>            Summary: Improve error message.
>            Product: D
>            Version: unspecified
>           Platform: All
>         OS/Version: All
>             Status: NEW
>           Severity: normal
>           Priority: P2
>          Component: DMD
>         AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com
>         ReportedBy: dawid.ciezarkiewicz@gmail.com
> 
> 
> map.d(165): cannot create instance of abstract class Droid
> 
> Please add info about method which isn't implemented yet: "because XXX is
> abstract" or smth. If many - the first one is good enought.
> 
> 

Who else thinks that this is a very badly constructed bug/issue report?

This should be made into a proper report (clear and info-complete), or removed.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=204





------- Comment #1 from deewiant@gmail.com  2006-06-18 10:09 -------
To show the issue more clearly:

--
class Foo { abstract void foo(); }
class Bar : Foo {}

void main() {
        Bar bar = new Bar();
}
--

The code fails with "cannot create instance of abstract class Bar". What is being asked for is an error message which would, in this instance, clarify that the reason the instantiation fails is that the method foo() is unimplemented in Bar.


-- 

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:23:49 +1000, Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail@SPAM.com> wrote:

> d-bugmail@puremagic.com wrote:
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=204
>>             Summary: Improve error message.
>>            Product: D
>>            Version: unspecified
>>           Platform: All
>>         OS/Version: All
>>             Status: NEW
>>           Severity: normal
>>           Priority: P2
>>          Component: DMD
>>         AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com
>>         ReportedBy: dawid.ciezarkiewicz@gmail.com
>>   map.d(165): cannot create instance of abstract class Droid
>>  Please add info about method which isn't implemented yet: "because XXX is
>> abstract" or smth. If many - the first one is good enought.
>>
>
> Who else thinks that this is a very badly constructed bug/issue report?

I didn't. I understood exactly what was being asked for.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

d-bugmail@puremagic.com schrieb am 2006-06-17:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=204

> map.d(165): cannot create instance of abstract class Droid
>
> Please add info about method which isn't implemented yet: "because XXX is abstract" or smth. If many - the first one is good enought.

test case: http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/a/abstract_14.d

Thomas

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:23:49 +1000, Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail@SPAM.com> wrote:
> 
>> d-bugmail@puremagic.com wrote:
>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=204
>>>             Summary: Improve error message.
>>>            Product: D
>>>            Version: unspecified
>>>           Platform: All
>>>         OS/Version: All
>>>             Status: NEW
>>>           Severity: normal
>>>           Priority: P2
>>>          Component: DMD
>>>         AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com
>>>         ReportedBy: dawid.ciezarkiewicz@gmail.com
>>>   map.d(165): cannot create instance of abstract class Droid
>>>  Please add info about method which isn't implemented yet: "because XXX is
>>> abstract" or smth. If many - the first one is good enought.
>>>
>>
>> Who else thinks that this is a very badly constructed bug/issue report?
> 
> I didn't. I understood exactly what was being asked for.
> 
> --Derek Parnell
> Melbourne, Australia

It might be the case that you understood it, but it still was very badly constructed:

The title/summary:
"Improve error message."
This is clearly an terrible summary, it is awfully generic and non-specific (!) . (What error message?)

The description:
The description doesn't mention what causes the error, either with a textual explanation or with a code example.
Derek, you understood it because surely you have seen it before, but I haven't, and so, if it wasn't for Deewiant example I (and anybody else in my situation) would not be able to figure out what the error was about at all (!) .

The categorization:
This is not a bug, it is a feature request. So perhaps it should have been filed under Severity:"Enhancement".

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=204


digitalmars-com@baysmith.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |digitalmars-com@baysmith.com




------- Comment #2 from digitalmars-com@baysmith.com  2006-09-28 17:11 -------
I think this is an important usability/productivity issue. Althought I don't know the internals of the DMD compiler, I would expect the compiler to know what is missing before deciding it can't create an instance. Therefore it should be a simple matter to add that information to the error message.

In addition, I think this gives DMD, and hence the D language, a feeling of incompleteness. Something which may be a hinderance to wider usage.


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=204





------- Comment #3 from braddr@puremagic.com  2007-01-27 01:34 -------
This is represented by dstress test:

http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/a/abstract_14.d


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=204





------- Comment #4 from smjg@iname.com  2007-01-27 08:00 -------
// __DSTRESS_ELINE__ 19

Why line 19?  Why not 16, where the abstract method is declared?


-- 

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=204





------- Comment #5 from fvbommel@wxs.nl  2007-01-27 09:57 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> // __DSTRESS_ELINE__ 19
> 
> Why line 19?  Why not 16, where the abstract method is declared?

I'd prefer both: 16 to indicate *which* abstract method isn't declared, and 19 to indicate *where* it isn't declared.


--