www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 10616] New: class C: C.D{static class D{}} does not work

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10616

           Summary: class C: C.D{static class D{}} does not work
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: timon.gehr gmx.ch



Crashes DMD 2.063, is an error with DMD from git head:

class C: C.D{static class D{}}

The code should compile.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 11 2013
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10616


Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrej.mitrovich gmail.com



06:42:00 PDT ---
That's a borderline enhancement request. It might potentially break code too,
e.g. this currently works:

-----
class D
{
}

class C : D
{
    static class D
    {
    }
}
-----

With the enhancement this would have to become a conflict, although the
workaround would be easy: one could use 'class C : .D' (dot expression) for the
global class and 'class C : D' for the nested one. But I'm not fond of such
lookup rules where something in an inner scope ends up conflicting with an
expression in an outer scope.

Well I don't think I've ever tried to use either of these samples so I don't
have a strong opinion either way.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 18 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10616






 That's a borderline enhancement request.


No, it is a bug report. C.D is a perfectly fine base class.


 It might potentially break code too,
 e.g. this currently works:
 
 -----
 class D
 {
 }
 
 class C : D
 {
     static class D
     {
     }
 }
 -----
 
 With the enhancement this would have to become a conflict,


I am not arguing for any enhancement that would change the meaning of the above
code.


 although the
 workaround would be easy: one could use 'class C : .D' (dot expression) for the
 global class and 'class C : D' for the nested one. But I'm not fond of such
 lookup rules where something in an inner scope ends up conflicting with an
 expression in an outer scope.
 ...


I generally like shadowing, but it would indeed be utterly pointless to look up
a classes' parents inside its own scope.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 18 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10616




13:14:30 PDT ---


 I am not arguing for any enhancement that would change the meaning of the above
 code.


Ah, so you want this to work:

class C: C.D{static class D{}}

but this to fail:

class C: D{static class D{}}

And the following would stay as-is:

class D { } class C: D{static class D{}}  // inherits global D

If that's so then this is reasonable.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jul 18 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10616


Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |js.mdnq gmail.com



*** Issue 10759 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 05 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10616


Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |ice, pull



Fix for ICE:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2449

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 05 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10616




Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/55d944d9e06c3dc7d00a61adcdefbc0048a2e283
fix Issue 10616 - class C: C.D{static class D{}} does not work

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/1ec9aa41bf33cf1f92fc6f60bbe5244e2898a7b7


Issue 10616 - class C: C.D{static class D{}} does not work

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 05 2013
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10616


Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|ice, pull                   |rejects-valid



06:53:52 PDT ---
ICE fixed, but the bug report will remain open for the rejects-valid code.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Aug 05 2013