I'm pretty sure the following is a compiler bug, right? (using DMD 2.063)

---------
module a;

void foo(char)
{
}

---------
module b;

enum MyEnum : int { _ }

void foo(MyEnum)
{
}

---------
module main;

import a;
import b;

void main()
{
    foo(char.init);
    foo(MyEnum.init); // [1]
}

// 1) Error: b.foo at b.d(5) conflicts with a.foo at a.d(3)

There shouldn't be a problem with this cross-module overloading, because MyEnum isn't implicitly convertible to char and vice versa, and thus the partial ordering of functions should consider a.foo and b.foo unordered.

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 01:09:28 TommiT wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the following is a compiler bug, right? (using
> DMD 2.063)
> 
> ---------
> module a;
> 
> void foo(char)
> {
> }
> 
> ---------
> module b;
> 
> enum MyEnum : int { _ }
> 
> void foo(MyEnum)
> {
> }
> 
> ---------
> module main;
> 
> import a;
> import b;
> 
> void main()
> {
> foo(char.init);
> foo(MyEnum.init); // [1]
> }
> 
> // 1) Error: b.foo at b.d(5) conflicts with a.foo at a.d(3)
> 
> There shouldn't be a problem with this cross-module overloading, because MyEnum isn't implicitly convertible to char and vice versa, and thus the partial ordering of functions should consider a.foo and b.foo unordered.

It certainly looks like a bug to me.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 02:39:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 01:09:28 TommiT wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure the following is a compiler bug, right? (using
>> DMD 2.063)
>> 
>> ---------
>> module a;
>> 
>> void foo(char)
>> {
>> }
>> 
>> ---------
>> module b;
>> 
>> enum MyEnum : int { _ }
>> 
>> void foo(MyEnum)
>> {
>> }
>> 
>> ---------
>> module main;
>> 
>> import a;
>> import b;
>> 
>> void main()
>> {
>> foo(char.init);
>> foo(MyEnum.init); // [1]
>> }
>> 
>> // 1) Error: b.foo at b.d(5) conflicts with a.foo at a.d(3)
>> 
>> There shouldn't be a problem with this cross-module overloading,
>> because MyEnum isn't implicitly convertible to char and vice
>> versa, and thus the partial ordering of functions should consider
>> a.foo and b.foo unordered.
>
> It certainly looks like a bug to me.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Bug report there:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10361