• David L. Davis (4/25) Jul 17 2008 No Problem.
• BCS (2/6) Jul 17 2008 His stance is that typeof(Type) is /not/ valid, D1.0 or D2.0.
• David L. Davis (3/13) Jul 17 2008 Got it, thanks.
• Bill Baxter (6/20) Jul 17 2008 Yes, it was reported as a bug (multiple times?) already. And the bugs
• David L. Davis (4/26) Jul 18 2008 Thanks for the info Bill, I must admit I haven't been following the NG a...

David L. Davis <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:

Koroskin Denis Wrote:

 On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:20:48 +0400, David L. Davis  
 <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> wrote:
 
 Koroskin Denis Wrote:
 typeof(T2) doesn't work anymore. Try replacing with T2.
 BTW, error message is pretty clear and shows correct line number.

 typeof(T2) v2; // Error: argument ulong to typeof is not an expression

 Next time post to digitalmars.D or digitalmars.D.learn, please!

 Thxs for the reply...btw I'm not new here...I know all about noob  
 questions must go to learn. This is an issue with the existing D v1.xxx  
 compiler changing things, which is what I'm pointing out to Walter.  
 Plus, maybe the message makes perfect sense to you...but it doesn't to  
 me. Could you please reframe from hammering down on people in the  
 future...to me you're the new kid on the block. :)

 David L. Davis

 
 Sorry for that, no offense was intended.

No Problem. 

And thanks again, you're suggestion of using "T2 v2" in place of "typeof(T2)
v2" does fix the issue in my aging D v1.xxx code. (In fact it makes a lot more
sense that it should work this way, but the fact still remains that it does
break any of the existing D v1.xxx code written the other way). But I'll leave
that up Walter to decide if the risk to existing D v1.xxx code is very low as
to whether he'll leave the valid D v1.xxxx statement "typeof(T2) v2" as an
error, or to fix it. If he decides to fix it, then I'll put in a bug report,
otherwise I'll just change my code, and continue testing this code against the
future D v1.xxx releases (just trying do my small part in moving D forward).

David L. Davis

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to David,

 I'll leave that up Walter to decide if the risk to existing D v1.xxx
 code is very low as to whether he'll leave the valid D v1.xxxx
 statement "typeof(T2) v2" as an error
 

His stance is that typeof(Type) is /not/ valid, D1.0 or D2.0.

David L. Davis <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:

BCS Wrote:

 Reply to David,
 
 I'll leave that up Walter to decide if the risk to existing D v1.xxx
 code is very low as to whether he'll leave the valid D v1.xxxx
 statement "typeof(T2) v2" as an error
 

 
 His stance is that typeof(Type) is /not/ valid, D1.0 or D2.0.
 
 

Got it, thanks.

David L. Davis

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

David L. Davis wrote:
 BCS Wrote:
 
 Reply to David,

 I'll leave that up Walter to decide if the risk to existing D v1.xxx
 code is very low as to whether he'll leave the valid D v1.xxxx
 statement "typeof(T2) v2" as an error

 His stance is that typeof(Type) is /not/ valid, D1.0 or D2.0.

 Got it, thanks.
 
 David L. Davis

Yes, it was reported as a bug (multiple times?) already.  And the bugs 
were closed as invalid by Walter.  Also mentioned on the NG here a few 
times I think.  But you're right, it did break a lot of code.  And it's 
not always easy to tell why.

--bb

David L. Davis <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:

Bill Baxter Wrote:

 David L. Davis wrote:
 BCS Wrote:
 
 Reply to David,

 I'll leave that up Walter to decide if the risk to existing D v1.xxx
 code is very low as to whether he'll leave the valid D v1.xxxx
 statement "typeof(T2) v2" as an error

 His stance is that typeof(Type) is /not/ valid, D1.0 or D2.0.

 Got it, thanks.
 
 David L. Davis

 
 Yes, it was reported as a bug (multiple times?) already.  And the bugs 
 were closed as invalid by Walter.  Also mentioned on the NG here a few 
 times I think.  But you're right, it did break a lot of code.  And it's 
 not always easy to tell why.
 
 --bb

Thanks for the info Bill, I must admit I haven't been following the NG as
closely as I did in the past. I do try to scan them at least once a day during
the work-week. Also it's nice to see a lot more people posting tho, just wish
this NG search ability were better. 

Thanks again for the reply,
David L. Davis