This code contains an error, operator !== should be used instead of != in the findNode() function (problem doesn't show up then)
Yet dmd.109 reports something else ;)

> Assertion failure: 'ident' on line 611 in file 'dsymbol.c'


interface INode
{
	INode		owner();
}


class BasicNode : INode
{
	INode findNode()
	{
		foreach(INode c; m_children)
			if (c.owner != this) continue;
		return null;
	}
	
	INode[]	m_children;
}

The result is exactly the same if the owner() function is implemented in the BasicNode class.

Added to DStress as http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/bug_dsymbol_611_A.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/nocompile/bug_dsymbol_611_B.d http://dstress.kuehne.cn/compile/bug_dsymbol_611_C.d

Thomas

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:24:08 +0100, h3r3tic <foo@bar.baz> wrote:

> This code contains an error, operator !== should be used instead of !=
> in the findNode() function (problem doesn't show up then)
> Yet dmd.109 reports something else ;)
>
>  > Assertion failure: 'ident' on line 611 in file 'dsymbol.c'
>
>
> interface INode
> {
> 	INode		owner();
> }
>
>
> class BasicNode : INode
> {
> 	INode findNode()
> 	{
> 		foreach(INode c; m_children)
> 			if (c.owner != this) continue;
> 		return null;
> 	}
> 	
> 	INode[]	m_children;
> }
>
> The result is exactly the same if the owner() function is implemented in
> the BasicNode class.
>

I was under the impression that the identifier token === (and its negative !==)
were replaced by 'is' (and !(foo is bar))

Simon Buchan wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 16:24:08 +0100, h3r3tic <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
> 
>> This code contains an error, operator !== should be used instead of !=
>> in the findNode() function (problem doesn't show up then)
>> Yet dmd.109 reports something else ;)
>>
>>  > Assertion failure: 'ident' on line 611 in file 'dsymbol.c'
>>
>>
>> interface INode
>> {
>>     INode        owner();
>> }
>>
>>
>> class BasicNode : INode
>> {
>>     INode findNode()
>>     {
>>         foreach(INode c; m_children)
>>             if (c.owner != this) continue;
>>         return null;
>>     }
>>         INode[]    m_children;
>> }
>>
>> The result is exactly the same if the owner() function is implemented in
>> the BasicNode class.
>>
> 
> I was under the impression that the identifier token === (and its negative !==)
> were replaced by 'is' (and !(foo is bar))

Not replaced. They're alternatives. Anyway it was not a typo in the code so the '=' versus '==' versus '===' problem doesn't apply here ;)
Anyways, why hasn't the 'a aint b' operator been adopted instead of '!(a is b)' ? Maybe I should add it to my preprocessor :)

h3r3tic wrote:

> Anyways, why hasn't the 'a aint b' operator been adopted instead of '!(a is b)' ? Maybe I should add it to my preprocessor :)

Shouldn't that be "isnt" ? (since "isn't" is a keyword nightmare)

I'm not really sure that D needs any more english operators, though...
(and there are plenty before that one: "unless", "and", "or", "not")

--anders