[Issue 2716] New: Confusion of auto and scope as the class attribute

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2716 Summary: Confusion of auto and scope as the class attribute Product: D Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows Status: NEW Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: bugzilla@digitalmars.com ReportedBy: rayerd.wiz@gmail.com auto class B {} void main() { B x; } a.d(4): variable a.main.x reference to scope class must be scope --

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2716 smjg@iname.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |smjg@iname.com Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID ------- Comment #1 from smjg@iname.com 2009-03-08 12:39 ------- An auto class and a scope class are the same thing. What do you think auto means in this context? --

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2716 braddr@puremagic.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | Version|unspecified |2.000 ------- Comment #2 from braddr@puremagic.com 2009-03-08 12:42 ------- That use of auto is supposed to be going away. I've reopened and assigned to 2.x. --

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2716 ------- Comment #3 from smjg@iname.com 2009-03-08 17:26 ------- What is this different something that auto in this context means now? I can't find it by a quick look through the docs. --

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2716 ------- Comment #4 from braddr@puremagic.com 2009-03-08 21:03 ------- The old concept of 'auto' meaning 'scope' should be dead. It's death started before the 1.0 release (if I remember my history correctly, don't feel like searching the changelogs). It appears that it isn't in this case. 'auto class' should be either an error or a no-op depending on your philosophy of redundant type prefixes. --

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2716 smjg@iname.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|rejects-valid |diagnostic ------- Comment #5 from smjg@iname.com 2009-03-08 21:29 ------- No redundant type prefix here. auto either (a) still means the same as scope, IWC this whole bug report is nonsense (b) makes no sense here at all, IWC the rejects-valid keyword here is nonsense - it's diagnostic here, possibly accepts-invalid But there's something wrong - auto is still given on attribute.html, but the way it's used there it doesn't seem to be an attribute. Brad, while I have your ear, are you planning to catch up on the issues filed here against puremagic.com itself any time soon? --

d-bugmail@puremagic.com wrote: > > But there's something wrong - auto is still given on attribute.html, but the > way it's used there it doesn't seem to be an attribute. 'auto' was originally and continues to be a storage class. It's the default storage class if another one isn't specified, so the following are equivalent: auto int x = 5; int x = 5; Type inference happens via the omission of a type specifier, so auto is mostly used in this context, ie: auto x = 5; // int variable with a storage class of 'auto' const x = 5; // int variable with a storage class of 'const'

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2716 --- Comment #6 from Christian Kamm <kamm-removethis@incasoftware.de> 2009-07-12 08:23:17 PDT --- Created an attachment (id=421) --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=421) Do not consider auto to mean scope. This is a patch against LDC's DMDFE. It removes the remaining instances of auto meaning scope and makes 'auto class C { ... }' and 'auto C c;' an 'Error: storage class has no effect: auto'. See also bug 3118 . -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2716 --- Comment #7 from Stewart Gordon <smjg@iname.com> 2009-07-13 03:58:18 PDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Created an attachment (id=421) --> (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/attachment.cgi?id=421) [details] > Do not consider auto to mean scope. > > This is a patch against LDC's DMDFE. It removes the remaining instances of auto meaning scope and makes 'auto class C { ... }' and 'auto C c;' an 'Error: storage class has no effect: auto'. See also bug 3118 . "storage class has no effect" seems to be the wrong wording. Firstly, it'll be a case of doesn't make sense rather than has no effect; secondly, this is making it not a storage class at all. Moreover, should we get rid of it straight off, or deprecate it first? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

July 13, 2009

[Issue 2716] Confusion of auto and scope as the class attribute

Posted by Christian Kamm
in reply to d-bugmail

Permalink

Christian Kamm

Posted in reply to d-bugmail

Permalink

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2716


Christian Kamm <kamm-removethis@incasoftware.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |kamm-removethis@incasoftwar
                   |                            |e.de




--- Comment #8 from Christian Kamm <kamm-removethis@incasoftware.de>  2009-07-13 09:41:53 PDT ---
> "storage class has no effect" seems to be the wrong wording.

I'll change it if you come up with a nicer error message. "cannot be auto" would've been consistent with other error messages of this kind, but I thought the "has no effect" one was nicer.

> Firstly, it'll be a case of doesn't make sense rather than has no effect; secondly, this is making it not a storage class at all.

That's arguable. My reasoning was that as a do-nothing storage class, auto makes sense everywhere. Its only 'effect' is to allow type inference in the absence of another storage class.

> Moreover, should we get rid of it straight off, or deprecate it first?

I would've if it had ever been in the D1 spec, but as far as I remember it's around purely as a holdover from pre-D1.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Forums