[Repost] Issue 8220 - invalid function call not detected during semantic analysis #1007
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I agree with you. I have written code like Walter's example in the past, and I later rewrote it because I decided it was wrong. int + int isn't valid, and typeof(int + int) shouldn't be, either. It's easy enough to add .init to every type to turn those into valid expressions. It's not like it's a silent breakage. But only Walter can merge this. |
|
LGTM. @WalterBright please merge this before any more people start assuming that |
WalterBright
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 7, 2013
[Repost] Issue 8220 - invalid function call not detected during semantic analysis
|
This pull introduced a regression: |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8220
This pull is identical to #1000. @WalterBright reverted #1000, because of the breaking of test case that he has, but I think it is genuinely invalid code (my comment).