• Kris (7/7) Apr 08 2005 class Foo
• Sean Kelly (3/10) Apr 09 2005 FWIW, I can't reproduce this with DMD .120.
• Kris (6/19) Apr 09 2005 Thanks, Sean. Was this one fixed in v119? I see something similar noted
• Stewart Gordon (9/22) Apr 12 2005 The fix of this bug _was_ documented in the changelog. But it's vanishe...
• Walter (16/23) Apr 09 2005 The following compiles and runs fine:
• Kris (5/30) Apr 09 2005 Thanks; the issue was resolved via the fixes in v119 (which couldn't be ...
• xs0 (20/54) May 12 2005 I get this with 0.123:

"Kris" <fu bar.com> writes:

class Foo
{
        void init (int x) {}

       static void init (long y) {}
}

Given the above, an attempt to call either one causes a compile error;
changing one of the method names resolves the conflict.

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

In article <d37pf8$17b3$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
class Foo
{
        void init (int x) {}

       static void init (long y) {}
}

Given the above, an attempt to call either one causes a compile error;
changing one of the method names resolves the conflict.

FWIW, I can't reproduce this with DMD .120.


Sean

"Kris" <fu bar.com> writes:

Thanks, Sean. Was this one fixed in v119? I see something similar noted
there.

(couldn't use that version, given the "base class forward reference" issue,
and couldn't download v120)


"Sean Kelly" <sean f4.ca> wrote in message
news:d392i3$164f$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <d37pf8$17b3$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
class Foo
{
        void init (int x) {}

       static void init (long y) {}
}

Given the above, an attempt to call either one causes a compile error;
changing one of the method names resolves the conflict.

 FWIW, I can't reproduce this with DMD .120.


 Sean

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <d37pf8$17b3$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
 
class Foo
{
       void init (int x) {}

      static void init (long y) {}
}

Given the above, an attempt to call either one causes a compile error;
changing one of the method names resolves the conflict.

 
 FWIW, I can't reproduce this with DMD .120.

The fix of this bug _was_ documented in the changelog.  But it's vanished.

And using "init" as a member name is silly - it eclipses the built-in 
.init property, screwing up generic programming.  I don't know why 
Walter didn't make this illegal.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Kris" <fu bar.com> wrote in message news:d37pf8$17b3$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 class Foo
 {
         void init (int x) {}

        static void init (long y) {}
 }

 Given the above, an attempt to call either one causes a compile error;
 changing one of the method names resolves the conflict.

The following compiles and runs fine:

class Foo
{
       int init (int x) { return 1; }

       static int init (long y) { return 2; }
}

void main()
{
    Foo f = new Foo();
    int i;

    i = f.init(1);
    assert(i == 1);
    i = f.init(1L);
    assert(i == 2);
}

"Kris" <fu bar.com> writes:

Thanks; the issue was resolved via the fixes in v119 (which couldn't be used
due to that "base-class forward-ref" bug).


"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:d399dv$1jp6$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Kris" <fu bar.com> wrote in message

news:d37pf8$17b3$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 class Foo
 {
         void init (int x) {}

        static void init (long y) {}
 }

 Given the above, an attempt to call either one causes a compile error;
 changing one of the method names resolves the conflict.

 The following compiles and runs fine:

 class Foo
 {
        int init (int x) { return 1; }

        static int init (long y) { return 2; }
 }

 void main()
 {
     Foo f = new Foo();
     int i;

     i = f.init(1);
     assert(i == 1);
     i = f.init(1L);
     assert(i == 2);
 }

xs0 <xs0 xs0.com> writes:

I get this with 0.123:

test.d(13): 'this' is required, but test.Foo is not a base class of Bar
test.d(13): class test.Bar member hash is not accessible

Both of which don't make sense to me..

module test;

public class Foo
{
     public int hash() {}
     public static int hash(double val) {}
}

public class Bar
{
     public int hash()
     {
         return Foo.hash(1);
     }
}


xs0

PS: it happens if there is code in funcs, too


Walter wrote:
 "Kris" <fu bar.com> wrote in message news:d37pf8$17b3$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 
class Foo
{
        void init (int x) {}

       static void init (long y) {}
}

Given the above, an attempt to call either one causes a compile error;
changing one of the method names resolves the conflict.

 
 
 The following compiles and runs fine:
 
 class Foo
 {
        int init (int x) { return 1; }
 
        static int init (long y) { return 2; }
 }
 
 void main()
 {
     Foo f = new Foo();
     int i;
 
     i = f.init(1);
     assert(i == 1);
     i = f.init(1L);
     assert(i == 2);
 }