digitalmars.D - Favorite bug?
- Brad Roberts (9/9) Jul 01 2007 I'll probably regret starting this thread in a day or to, but out of
- Derek Parnell (32/40) Jul 02 2007 Allowing inappropriate implicit conversions of signed values to unsigned
- Brad Roberts (6/20) Jul 02 2007 Let me clarify my intent: What's your favorite bugzilla reported issue.
- Robert Fraser (7/7) Jul 02 2007 1083 (classtype.classinfo.name can't be evaluated in compile-time)... wh...
- Jarrett Billingsley (7/16) Jul 02 2007 102/282/912 -- Yes, I know, three reported bugs, but they're all because...
- Deewiant (5/14) Jul 02 2007 313 and 314: I can't choose which of the two I would like first. They ma...
- Bill Baxter (9/20) Jul 02 2007 #52 for me.
- Craig Black (6/26) Jul 02 2007 It would be ideal if it was interpreted as a special type of function
- BCS (2/19) Jul 02 2007 how about &fn give you a tuple?
- BCS (11/22) Jul 02 2007 switch(n)
- Walter Bright (2/12) Jul 02 2007 That one was fixed.
- BCS (2/16) Jul 02 2007 when? Am I just out of date?
-
Walter Bright
(2/4)
Jul 02 2007
You're 1 day out of date
. - BCS (2/10) Jul 02 2007 Was that an unlisted bug fix or am I not recognizing the bug in the list...
- BCS (2/15) Jul 02 2007 never mind 1118 also covers that one
- Witold Baryluk (2/3) Jul 11 2007 And 1245 ?
- Jason House (7/18) Jul 02 2007 In general, I'm concerned with portability right now.
- Witold Baryluk (4/15) Jul 11 2007 102, "forward referencing beetwen files."
- Manfred Nowak (16/17) Jul 11 2007 Fixing the two years old undetected ambiguity bug:
I'll probably regret starting this thread in a day or to, but out of curiosity's sake, if you had to pick a single bug to be fixed in the next 1.x bug fix release, what would it be and why? Remember, just one per person. NOTE: This is just a poll, not any sort of guarantee that it'll be fixed or even looked at. I'm doing this purely out of my own personal curiosity. Later, Brad
Jul 01 2007
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 23:42:37 -0700 (PDT), Brad Roberts wrote:I'll probably regret starting this thread in a day or to, but out of curiosity's sake, if you had to pick a single bug to be fixed in the next 1.x bug fix release, what would it be and why? Remember, just one per person. NOTE: This is just a poll, not any sort of guarantee that it'll be fixed or even looked at. I'm doing this purely out of my own personal curiosity.Allowing inappropriate implicit conversions of signed values to unsigned variables. For example allowing a 'uint' to be initialized to a negative number. Why? Because it hides bugs that the compiler could catch. C:\temp>type test.d import std.stdio; void foo(uint b) { writefln(`foo says "%s"`, b); } void main() { uint x = -1; // Should be a compile-time error writefln("%d", x); int y = -2; x = y; // Should be a runtime error at least. writefln("%d", x); foo(-3); // Should have a "no matching method" error foo(y); // Should have a "no matching method" error } C:\temp>dmd test y:\dmd\bin\..\..\dm\bin\link.exe test,,,user32+kernel32/noi; C:\temp>test 4294967295 4294967294 foo says "4294967293" foo says "4294967294" -- Derek (skype: derek.j.parnell) Melbourne, Australia 2/07/2007 5:52:05 PM
Jul 02 2007
Derek Parnell wrote:On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 23:42:37 -0700 (PDT), Brad Roberts wrote:Let me clarify my intent: What's your favorite bugzilla reported issue. What you pointed out is a hotly debatable point that's not in the set I'm interested in. :) Later, BradI'll probably regret starting this thread in a day or to, but out of curiosity's sake, if you had to pick a single bug to be fixed in the next 1.x bug fix release, what would it be and why? Remember, just one per person. NOTE: This is just a poll, not any sort of guarantee that it'll be fixed or even looked at. I'm doing this purely out of my own personal curiosity.Allowing inappropriate implicit conversions of signed values to unsigned variables. For example allowing a 'uint' to be initialized to a negative number. Why? Because it hides bugs that the compiler could catch.
Jul 02 2007
1083 (classtype.classinfo.name can't be evaluated in compile-time)... while I'm not sure if I directly have a use for it now (since my current DSource project is actually in Java...), I can definitely see why this would be useful for metaprogramming. Closely followed by (I know you said one per person but...): 1258 (Garbage collector loses memory upon array concatenation) - The fix looks easy, though Walter must have commented that line out for a reason... ANyways, if you can't trust the garbage collector [insert witty statement here]. 929 (Resizing array of associative arrays (uint[char[]][]) causes infinite loop / hang) - Actually _been_ bitten by this one 987 (Add DMD compiler switch to prevent automatic linking to phobos.lib/libphobos.a) - because the whole tango/phobos split is tearing my mind apart As you can probably guess, I only went through the P1s and "blowout"/"critical"s, so I'm sure there are probably more suitable ones somewhere down there. How about you, Brad?
Jul 02 2007
"Brad Roberts" <braddr puremagic.com> wrote in message news:mailman.54.1183358567.16939.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...I'll probably regret starting this thread in a day or to, but out of curiosity's sake, if you had to pick a single bug to be fixed in the next 1.x bug fix release, what would it be and why? Remember, just one per person. NOTE: This is just a poll, not any sort of guarantee that it'll be fixed or even looked at. I'm doing this purely out of my own personal curiosity. Later, Brad102/282/912 -- Yes, I know, three reported bugs, but they're all because of the same issue: FORWARD REFERENCING. This really, _really_ needs to be fixed. And come on, 102 is ancient, there's no excuse for this bug to have been known for so long and not have been fixed. And that it's been reported at least three times means that yes, people do run into this.
Jul 02 2007
Brad Roberts wrote:I'll probably regret starting this thread in a day or to, but out of curiosity's sake, if you had to pick a single bug to be fixed in the next 1.x bug fix release, what would it be and why? Remember, just one per person. NOTE: This is just a poll, not any sort of guarantee that it'll be fixed or even looked at. I'm doing this purely out of my own personal curiosity.313 and 314: I can't choose which of the two I would like first. They make enforcing correct usage of modules difficult. Okay, so it's not that bad when it's your own code, but they make the protection identifiers pretty much useless. After that, 340, for obvious reasons. Of the sub-issues, 810 is foremost.
Jul 02 2007
Brad Roberts wrote:I'll probably regret starting this thread in a day or to, but out of curiosity's sake, if you had to pick a single bug to be fixed in the next 1.x bug fix release, what would it be and why? Remember, just one per person. NOTE: This is just a poll, not any sort of guarantee that it'll be fixed or even looked at. I'm doing this purely out of my own personal curiosity. Later, BradReferring to a function by name only gets you the first version that appears lexically. No warning about conflicting overloads. Unfortunately I also dread seeing this one fixed, because I suspect the fix is going to be just to make it an error, and/or require casting to the exact version you want with a monstrosity like: cast(return_type function(int,double,char[]) &fn --bb
Jul 02 2007
"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message news:f6asup$2sjh$1 digitalmars.com...Brad Roberts wrote:It would be ideal if it was interpreted as a special type of function pointer that knows about all the overloads, and then identifies the exact overload when it is assigned. That would be cool. -CraigI'll probably regret starting this thread in a day or to, but out of curiosity's sake, if you had to pick a single bug to be fixed in the next 1.x bug fix release, what would it be and why? Remember, just one per person. NOTE: This is just a poll, not any sort of guarantee that it'll be fixed or even looked at. I'm doing this purely out of my own personal curiosity. Later, BradReferring to a function by name only gets you the first version that appears lexically. No warning about conflicting overloads. Unfortunately I also dread seeing this one fixed, because I suspect the fix is going to be just to make it an error, and/or require casting to the exact version you want with a monstrosity like: cast(return_type function(int,double,char[]) &fn --bb
Jul 02 2007
Reply to Craig,"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message news:f6asup$2sjh$1 digitalmars.com...how about &fn give you a tuple?Brad Roberts wrote: Referring to a function by name only gets you the first version that appears lexically. No warning about conflicting overloads. Unfortunately I also dread seeing this one fixed, because I suspect the fix is going to be just to make it an error, and/or require casting to the exact version you want with a monstrosity like: cast(return_type function(int,double,char[]) &fnIt would be ideal if it was interpreted as a special type of function pointer that knows about all the overloads, and then identifies the exact overload when it is assigned. That would be cool.
Jul 02 2007
Reply to Brad,I'll probably regret starting this thread in a day or to, but out of curiosity's sake, if you had to pick a single bug to be fixed in the next 1.x bug fix release, what would it be and why? Remember, just one per person. NOTE: This is just a poll, not any sort of guarantee that it'll be fixed or even looked at. I'm doing this purely out of my own personal curiosity. Later, Bradswitch(n) { alias T!(1,2,3,4,5) Tp; foreach(int i, int j; Tp) { case j: // fails: non const case Tp[i]: // passes break; } }
Jul 02 2007
BCS wrote:switch(n) { alias T!(1,2,3,4,5) Tp; foreach(int i, int j; Tp) { case j: // fails: non const case Tp[i]: // passes break; } }That one was fixed.
Jul 02 2007
Reply to Walter,BCS wrote:when? Am I just out of date?switch(n) { alias T!(1,2,3,4,5) Tp; foreach(int i, int j; Tp) { case j: // fails: non const case Tp[i]: // passes break; } }That one was fixed.
Jul 02 2007
BCS wrote:You're 1 day out of date <g>.That one was fixed.when? Am I just out of date?
Jul 02 2007
Reply to Walter,BCS wrote:Was that an unlisted bug fix or am I not recognizing the bug in the list?You're 1 day out of date <g>.That one was fixed.when? Am I just out of date?
Jul 02 2007
Reply to Benjamin,Reply to Walter,never mind 1118 also covers that oneBCS wrote:Was that an unlisted bug fix or am I not recognizing the bug in the list?You're 1 day out of date <g>.That one was fixed.when? Am I just out of date?
Jul 02 2007
BCS wrote:never mind 1118 also covers that oneAnd 1245 ?
Jul 11 2007
Reply to Witold,BCS wrote:actually I have code that it still doesn't work for (v1.018)never mind 1118 also covers that oneAnd 1245 ?that is a different issue
Jul 11 2007
Reply to Benjamin,Reply to Witold,AND the issue I was talking about (oops)BCS wrote:actually I have code that it still doesn't work for (v1.018)never mind 1118 also covers that oneAnd 1245 ?that is a different issue
Jul 11 2007
In general, I'm concerned with portability right now. dynamic memory kills gdc 0.23 in any sufficiently complex program. The next on my hit list is the non-portability of timing function calls. Both those issues have a pile of posts from me trying to resolve them on the D.learn group. Brad Roberts wrote:I'll probably regret starting this thread in a day or to, but out of curiosity's sake, if you had to pick a single bug to be fixed in the next 1.x bug fix release, what would it be and why? Remember, just one per person. NOTE: This is just a poll, not any sort of guarantee that it'll be fixed or even looked at. I'm doing this purely out of my own personal curiosity. Later, Brad
Jul 02 2007
Brad Roberts wrote:I'll probably regret starting this thread in a day or to, but out of curiosity's sake, if you had to pick a single bug to be fixed in the next 1.x bug fix release, what would it be and why? Remember, just one per person. NOTE: This is just a poll, not any sort of guarantee that it'll be fixed or even looked at. I'm doing this purely out of my own personal curiosity. Later, Brad102, "forward referencing beetwen files." 312, "bypassing imports" 318, "wait does not release thread resources on Linux", important!
Jul 11 2007
Brad Roberts wrotewhat would it be and why?Fixing the two years old undetected ambiguity bug: import std.stdio; class Foo { this( int x, int y){ writefln( "two parm");}; this( int x ){ writefln( "one parm");}; } void test( Foo f ...){} void test( int x, Foo f ...){} void main(){ test( 1, 1); // ambiguities: // test( Foo(1,1)) // test( 1, Foo(1)) } because this sort of ambiguities seems intractable. -manfred
Jul 11 2007