• Derek Parnell (14/14) Nov 24 2005 This will not compile if the commented line is uncommented.
• Ivan Senji (2/15) Nov 24 2005
• Derek Parnell (7/23) Nov 25 2005 Thanks. This is not obvious so it should be documented officially. Plus ...
• Ivan Senji (5/8) Nov 25 2005 No it isn't. I don't think that there is anyone who didn't make that
• Don Clugston (5/17) Nov 25 2005 and the odd thing is, it doesn't seem to be necessary for that example!
• Georg Wrede (3/7) Nov 25 2005 Between .138 and .140, I'd take whatever .140 does as the Canonical out

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

This will not compile if the commented line is uncommented.

=========================
class Foo(T)
{
    void Bar( Foo!(int) a) {}
}
//alias Foo!(real) dFoo;  // Must be a comment to compile.

========================

Is this a bug or am I missing something?

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
25/11/2005 5:10:07 PM

Ivan Senji <ivan.senji_REMOVE_ _THIS__gmail.com> writes:

Derek Parnell wrote:
 This will not compile if the commented line is uncommented.
 
 =========================
 class Foo(T)
 {
     void Bar( Foo!(int) a) {}

Should be void Bar( .Foo!(int) a) {}

 }
 //alias Foo!(real) dFoo;  // Must be a comment to compile.
 
 ========================
 
 Is this a bug or am I missing something?
 

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:30:26 +0100, Ivan Senji wrote:

 Derek Parnell wrote:
 This will not compile if the commented line is uncommented.
 
 =========================
 class Foo(T)
 {
     void Bar( Foo!(int) a) {}

 
 Should be void Bar( .Foo!(int) a) {}
 
 }
 //alias Foo!(real) dFoo;  // Must be a comment to compile.
 
 ========================
 
 Is this a bug or am I missing something?


Thanks. This is not obvious so it should be documented officially. Plus the
reason for it too, 'cos I'm still not sure why. But it works now.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
25/11/2005 8:33:51 PM

Ivan Senji <ivan.senji_REMOVE_ _THIS__gmail.com> writes:

Derek Parnell wrote:
 Thanks. This is not obvious so it should be documented officially. Plus the
 reason for it too, 'cos I'm still not sure why. But it works now.
 


No it isn't. I don't think that there is anyone who didn't make that 
mistake. The thing is it is ind the documentation in 
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/template.html, where it says that templates 
have their own scope + in that recursive templates example.

Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:

Ivan Senji wrote:
 Derek Parnell wrote:
 
 Thanks. This is not obvious so it should be documented officially. 
 Plus the
 reason for it too, 'cos I'm still not sure why. But it works now.

 
 
 No it isn't. I don't think that there is anyone who didn't make that 
 mistake. The thing is it is ind the documentation in 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/template.html, where it says that templates 
 have their own scope + in that recursive templates example.

and the odd thing is, it doesn't seem to be necessary for that example!
At least, in DMD 0.138, it worked if you left out the dot.
Seems to be necessary again in DMD 0.140, where the behaviour is much 
more predictable.

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

Don Clugston wrote:
 and the odd thing is, it doesn't seem to be necessary for that
 example! At least, in DMD 0.138, it worked if you left out the dot. 
 Seems to be necessary again in DMD 0.140, where the behaviour is much
  more predictable.

Between .138 and .140, I'd take whatever .140 does as the Canonical out 
of those two.