www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 260] New: conflicting imports

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=260

           Summary: conflicting imports
           Product: D
           Version: 0.163
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: benoit tionex.de


given the following files:
File a.d in package A
File b.d, c.d in package BC

I got the error message
in b.d line... BC.b.A conflicts with BC.c.A in c.d line ...

After stumbling around and using the -v option, it turns out, this message was
generated while processing file BC.x and there were missing imports. Fixing
this, make the error go away.

Sorry, I don't have code to show this. But please make the message in a way it
also points to the file x.


--
Jul 20 2006
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=260






Here's a simple example of the issue:


// -- foo.d --
private import std.stdio;


// -- bar.d --
private import std.stdio;


// -- test.d --

import foo, bar;

void main()
{
    char[] hi = std.string.toString(3);
}


DMD:
   foo.d(1): import foo.std conflicts with bar.std at bar.d(1)


Of course, the code in test.d is a mistake, but look how unhelpful the error
message is. It will blame a library's code for a mistake the library-user made.


--
Jul 21 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=260






Yes, that is exactly the thing I had.
Thanks for your example.


--
Jul 21 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=260






I have recommend in the past that this message be change to read something more
like ...

"foo.d(1): Cannot find an accessible member called std.string.toString"


--
Jul 21 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=260






Oops, that line number was wrong. It should be "foo(5)" I guess, reflecting the
line in which the named member was used.


--
Jul 21 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=260








 Oops, that line number was wrong. It should be "foo(5)" I guess, reflecting the
 line in which the named member was used.


Shouldn't it also refer to test.d, rather than foo.d? 


--
Jul 24 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=260








 Here's a simple example of the issue:
 // -- foo.d --
 private import std.stdio;
 // -- bar.d --
 private import std.stdio;
 // -- test.d --
 import foo, bar;
 void main()
 {
     char[] hi = std.string.toString(3);
 }
 DMD:
    foo.d(1): import foo.std conflicts with bar.std at bar.d(1)
 Of course, the code in test.d is a mistake, but look how unhelpful the error
 message is. It will blame a library's code for a mistake the library-user made.


I've run that example and I get no error (DMD.163, no extra switches). Did you
run that test case in the latest DMDs?


--
Jul 25 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=260






But it should give an error something like ...

  test.d(4): undefined identifier std

because it didn't import std.stdio and both foo.d and bar.d imported that as
private, so test.d shouldn't use those imports.


--
Jul 25 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=260








 But it should give an error something like ...
   test.d(4): undefined identifier std
 because it didn't import std.stdio and both foo.d and bar.d imported that as
 private, so test.d shouldn't use those imports.


Well then, maybe it should give such error, but that's another bug altogether.
This error is not related to protection attributes: when it appeared, it
appeared even when public imports were used.

This bug report, besides being mildly malformed IMO, is a duplicate of bug



--
Jul 29 2006
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=260


bugzilla digitalmars.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WORKSFORME





This compiles successfully with dmd 1.031 and 2.015


--
Jun 24 2008